PPL-FI Requirements changing with EASA?

[Oxeagle]

Afternoon chaps,

I'd very much like to do my FI rating so that I could instruct at weekends for the fun of it in addition to my full time ops job, but at the moment I can't see the point in spending 12 months doing my ATPL theory exams considering that I plan to start the CPL ME/IR MCC training in three years time, and thus my exams would have lapsed by then! Now I heard somewhere that the introduiction of EASA will drop the requirement for a PPL wanting to undertake an FI rating to have completed either the CPL or ATPL theoretical knowledge exams. Is this truly the case? If so, when can we expect to see this change implemented? If this does come about I would certainly undertake an FI rating!

Cheers,


Ox

[ab33t]

Watch the press this has not been decided yet but is in the pipe line . Im keen to do this as well .

[TheOddOne]

I would imagine at least 2-3 years for implementation of any change here.

TOO

[BEagle]

1-2 years, perhaps.

As I understand it, to instruct at PPL level you will no longer be required to have passed the CPL or ATPL exams, you will not be required to hold a Class 1 medical - and EASA intends to file a variance from ICAO in allowing PPL/FIs to instruct for remuneration.

However, there will still be experience requirements to meet and the FIC to pass - no chnages in instructional standards will be accepted.

This should allow more experienced PPL holders to become part-time FIs and reduce the industry's dependence on pre-airline hours builders.

[helimutt]

...and in the process, dropping salaries which FI's can expect, as every T,D and H will go and do an FI rating. Maybe?:{


PS, not every FI is on his way to an airline job!;)

[The Westmorland Flye]

...and in the process, dropping salaries which FI's can expect, as every T,D and H will go and do an FI rating. Maybe?:{Certainly hope that this would not happen. I think the numbers would be fairly small - it's still a big enough commitment and your average PPL is unlikely to make it. And there certainly is a considerable shortage of instructors! I'd certainly instruct if I could but at 57 years old there's no way I can justify the enormous expenditure in both time and effort to do the CPL exams.

[2close]

Beagle,

I may be wrong but I recall reading that the EASA proposal was to permit "PPL FI" instructors to instruct to LAPL (or whatever the licence will be called) level only and that instructors teaching for the "EASA PPL" (again, whatever it will be called!) would still require CPL theory.

Have the minutes of the last FCL1 sub-committee meeting been published anywhere yet?

2close

[TheOddOne]

I'd certainly instruct if I could but at 57 years old there's no way I can justify the enormous expenditure in both time and effort to do the CPL exams.

A mere spring chicken yet!

I've just started a career as FI. I know one school where the CFI and deputy CFI are both well over 65 and still going strong.

You're right, it is a big effort, then you have to do the FI course which I found to be the hardest flying I've ever done, but I'm glad I made it.

TheOddOne

[Touchngo]

I'd certainly instruct if I could but at 57 years old there's no way I can justify the enormous expenditure in both time and effort to do the CPL exams.


Just finished my CPL / FIC and turned 59! Go for it, you will find it fun/challenging/rewarding :ok:

Touchngo

[The Westmorland Flye]

To be honest, it's the hassle factor that puts me off :ugh:. The nearest schools that do the CPL are nowhere near here and Gatwick is almost 400 miles away. By the time you've added in overnight accommodation you've spent several hundred quid more for each trip down there. It's just :mad: bonkers having to do so much travelling to take a bunch of exams that, for the most part have no relevance to the job at hand. The cost is outrageous too.

The longer people put up with this ridiculous situation, the longer it will be before the much needed changes are implemented.

[Pringle 1]

As someone who has had to jump through all the hoops to work as an instructor under the current system and has paid vast sums of money to various flight training institutions to achieve this, I have a very negative view of allowing PPL's to instruct for renumeration. The only reason that the GA industry are now bleeting is that they can no longer have a ready supply of eager wannabe airline pilots willing to work for peanuts just to get that first interview. As we all know 700 hours in a Cessna no longer does it for the airlines. They would rather take someone who has paid for a type rating. The problem for the local flying club (and the CFI) who may post here, is that they don't have much to offer someone who wants to be an airline pilot anymore. i.e. who wants to pay £6000 to earn £12000 a year? They will have even less to offer when the new multicrew licence comes in. I've got a good idea, let's let Jim who is a PPL at the club with lots of money pay us £6000 to do the course then we can pay him peanuts, as he is rich already so doesn't need the money.

I don't recall any of my training institutions telling me what a tragedy it was that I had to pay them to obtain a CPL in order to work as a flying instructor. Strangely their view seems to have changed now.

As for those who say it is too expensive and too much hastle to obtain a CPL this doesn't ring true either. How do you get to be an experienced PPL without money? If you can't put up with the hastle of studying the subject you wish to teach should you really be doing it?

BEagle, how many hours and how many hours of doing what, as a PPL do you think would be sufficient to start an FI(R) course?

If anyone thinks there will be a quality filter, where those who fall short of the standard required will be refused the ticket, I suggest this is wishful thinking. As we all know, if you are FI trained by Bloggs (£6000) you will be sent to Bloggs 2 for your test (£200 ish). Bloggs 2 will also send his students to Bloggs 1 to be tested. Gentleman's agreement you know! How many people reading this know of someone who failed their instructor course or test? I don't.

Sorry, but I feel there has been a slant on this forum which suggests that the whole of the GA world think that it is a good idea for PPL's to be able to instruct for money. In case you didn't realise, I don't. :*

[BEagle]

Pringle1, as you are a professional pilot, you will doubtless know the answer - or be able to find it in LASORS.....

In case you can't:

Have at least a CPL(A) or completed at least 200
hours of flight time of which 150 hours as
Pilot-in-Command if holding a PPL(A).

i. Completed at least 30 hours on single engine
piston powered aeroplanes of which at least 5
hours shall be in the six months preceding the
pre-entry flight test.

ii. Completed at least 10 hours instrument flight
instruction in aeroplanes of which not more
than 5 hours may be instrument ground time
in a FNPT or a flight simulator.

iii. Completed at least 20 hours of cross-country
flight as PIC of aeroplanes, including a
cross-country flight of at least 540km (300 nm)
in the course of which full-stop landings at two
aerodromes different from the aerodromes of
departure shall be made.

iv. Pass a specific pre-entry flight test with a FI
qualified as per JAR-FCL 1.330(f) based upon
the proficiency check as per JAR-FCL
1.240(b), within the six months preceding
the start of the course.


PPL/FIs were quite happily providing remunerated flight instruction at PPL level years ago. The industry valued their experience.

However, under the new proposals, there is nothing to prevent people-tube wannabees from hours building as FIs - the difference being that schools will probably have a wider choice of applicants to choose between.

[The Westmorland Flye]

Pringle 1

BEagle, how many hours and how many hours of doing what, as a PPL do you think would be sufficient to start an FI(R) course?I'll answer that question directly. I have around 300 hours P1, gained over four years, all in the sort of aircraft that people do ab initio training in. I feel that I have enough experience to have a crack at the pre-entry flight test for the FI course. A year ago I would not have felt ready.

I understand your point of view, essentially it is "I had to do it so everyone else should have to as well". I cannot agree with it.

[TheOddOne]

Pringle 1,

I, too, jumped through all the present hoops to become a FI. However, I can't see an objection to changing the rules to allow suitable PPLs to instruct for a Private Pilot's Licence of whatever flavour or hue (EASA PPL, LAPL, NPPL or whatever). It's FAR more important, in my view, that FIs should be properly trained and tested to ensure they can instruct effectively than whether or not they've attained a certain academic standard at a higher level. This latter probably matters if you're doing the ab initio work on an integrated course, but then if you're doing that the school are going to need you to have a CPL, ME-IR etc so you can instruct to that level, too.

In the short-term at least, I can't see an influx of PPL-only-holding instructors having any effect on the FI market or more importantly on wages, the numbers entering the industry are going to be pretty small.

TheOddOne

[Whopity]

Having trained a number of FIs who either had 300 hours as a PPL, or had just graduated from an Integrated ATPL course, I'd take the 300 hour PPL any day. Some of the Integrated Course graduates had as little as 50 hours PIC on a single; and appeared to have learned nothing useful from the 700 hours of theoretical training.

[Pringle 1]

As I thought, the suggestion is a reduction in the standard required to be able to instruct for money. Yes I know you can become an instructor as a PPL already (hours as Beagle specifies) and I know some PPL's (BCPL's) were rightly given grandfather rights which is of course only fair.

You didn't mention the current requirement to demonstrate knowledge to CPL level even if you are a PPL. Do you think this should be removed? If you do.......the knowledge base level of PPL instructors will reduce.

Yes, I know I am saying, "I had to so so should you." We all tend to look at these things 'selfishly' as demontrated by Westmorland who believes he is ready to start an FI course. He or she may well be of an appropriate standard but how can they demonstrate this. Perhaps a pre entry flight test with the person you are about to pay do the course is not the best way? It's all very subjective.

The current shortage of instructors is what is driving this. As a body of professionals I don't think we are standing up for ourselves. The plumber who fitted my boiler a month ago was able to charge a pretty high price for the job as there is a shortage of plumbers. He didn't get together with his plumber mates and say....lets forget about the Corgi thing and let the builders mate go and quote for jobs. Why not?...... "I had to do it, so so should you. " They are wise enough to realise that standards would drop and ultimately they would all lose money.

Why are existing instructors driving this?

[VFE]

Whilst I find it hard to believe that most integrated school graduates show poor theoretcial knowledge of flying I am definately in the pro-EASA recommendation camp.

A newly qualified CPL holder with around 200 hours is still very inexperienced - they will not have had much P1 experience, especially when making weather calls (which is the primary flight safety decision I find myself making on a daily basis as an instructor) as this decision will have been made by their own instructors during their training. Those with experience know that examining the METARS/TAFS studiously is no comparrison for the kind of met knowledge you gain through flying every day. Also, most CPL holders of recent years have gained their P1 time (and CPL!) in Florida. A totally different environment to the UK!

Therefore, I would like to add one stipulation to the minimum hours requirement in this EASA proposal and that is that all applicants must have completed 200 hours as P1 in the country they wish to instruct in. 150 P1 in the Florida sun means jack sh1t when you fly in the UK and I fear many will start using this route to obtain their PPL FI ticket just as wannabe airline modular students do which is not so much of a problem when the individual wishes to move straight to an airline but when they wish to instruct it adds a whole new worrying dimension. Will schools be that flush with instructors they will be able to turn those less attractive away?

As I see it - Joe Bloggs with zero flying time can sod off to the USA, get his PPL, hours build and then do the FIC (in the USA) and within a coupla months from start to finish be back here in the UK knocking on a flying school's door asking for an FI job. Hmmm....... :bored:

VFE.

[Whopity]

Whilst I find it hard to believe that most integrated school graduates show poor theoretcial knowledge of flying Not what I said! They may well have learned a lot of knowledge to pass exams but that knowledge is not a great deal of use on a FI Course.

[VFE]

I disagree - especially when it comes to the long briefings.

VFE.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Indeed, the other thing about most new FI's is that the knowledge is recent, by the time a PPL gets "Experienced" or "suitable" its probably 4 or 5 years since they had ground instruction or passed an exam only to a PPL level.

Invariably most/some committed students may be of a technical background pehaps (and only perhaps - b4 I get flamed) an IT or engineering background, it will become the blind leading the blinded.

Some sort of Pre course ground exam needs to be put in place - and it better be bloody difficult, some students crave knowledge and can ask very awkward questions :ooh:

[shortstripper]

Pringle 1

Perhaps the standards were dropped when the requirement for 700 hours to gain a CPL were dropped? How many hours did you need for your CPL? :hmm: But I suppose that's different?

I have the greatest respect for those who "jump through the hoops" to get their CPL/fATPL + FIR, but just because they had to, doesn't mean it's the "right" way! We had PPL instructors years ago, and there were still career instructors. The standards of instruction were certainly not lower, and many would argue the standard was much higher! I'd love to see PPL FIR's back. I think we lost a great deal of our "soul" when the rules were changed. Flying clubs became flying schools, and the fun just seemed to drain away. Why do you think Microlight clubs have enjoyed such success over the past decade?

PPL FIR's should not be seen as a threat. They should be the backbone of our clubs and the familiar faces that don't up and leave when the first airline post beckons! Multi, IR, CPL instruction is all there for the devoted CPL FIR who wants to make a career of instructing. FI pay has always been crap! It was when there were PPL instructors, and it has been since there haven't (well not many). You could increase the cost of basic PPL instruction, but if you did, you'd just loose customers to Microlights and Gliding (or to aviation all together). Instead of moaning about the crappy wages, you'd be better off just biting the bullet, accepting it like most do and dream of the day you can get an airline pilots wage. Unfortunately what people are payed in various walks of life often doesn't reflect what they're worth! :mad:

SS

[BEagle]

SS - one other point:

Currently, the airline wannabe has to obtain the CPL and FI Rating before being permitted to instruct for remuneration. Many will be sorely out of pocket for years, so will obviously jump at the first chance of an airline job and the opportunity to reduce their debt accordingly.

Whereas a PPL holder can build up pre-FI time as and when without having to give up any other 'day job', then embark upon the course. As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds.

[Pringle 1]

I undertstand why a flying club manager or CFI may want these changes to put bums on seats. I also appreciate that 700 hour PPL may have more to offer than a 200 hour CPL. Beagle is not argung for the 700 hour PPL however. He is arguing for a 200 hour PPL without the CPL ground exams or class 1 medical, as per his post qouting Lasors. Yes, I'm sure we all know an experienced PPL who would make an excellent instructor. But what is stopping him or her doing the CPL exams and flight test? Money? In the case of the 200 hour PPL, perhaps this is the case. The 700 hour PPL would have difficulty saying they were short of cash. Please don't say they don't have the time. If they don't, how will they ever find time to instruct. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the ground exams? Need I say any more?

Beagle, Whopity et al, I hope I havn't misread your thoughts. As far as I can tell you are saying that a PPL with 200 hours flying around Florida including the long Navex etc is just suitable as a CPL with 200 hours. If so, there is something seriously wrong with the CPL syllabus and testing. After all it is the minimum requirement that is disputed issue here.

I couldn't agree more that P1 experience is invaluable, but this is an argument to increase the amount of P1 required, not reduce the training requirement. Incidentally Whopity your good 300 hour PPL FI student probably had at least 100 hours more P1 than the proposed minimum.

Shortstripper you may have a point about falling standards since the old 700 hour CPL requirement. My point is that some instructors here seem to be arguing for a futher reduction in the base level required to join the profession (I qualified under the old CAA system incidentally).

I wonder how many low hour PPL's there are out there sitting on their money intending to spend it on a 2 month trip to Florida so they can become a flying instructor. I wouldn't blame them for this. As VFE suggests, by then the market will be so short of 'suitable' candidates your local flying club won't be able to wait for Mr or Mrs 700 hours trained in the UK. The people who are holding back in hope are only making the shortage of instructors worse.

Lets not pretend this is anything other than a drop in standards to fill empty instructor positions. Necessary though it may be. It is for the industry (our employers) to argue their case, not us, as we are the only ones who stand to lose.

[The Westmorland Flye]

Lets not pretend this is anything other than a drop in standards to fill empty instructor positions.Yes, ultimately that is precisely what it is. And for a reason. In the same way as a wannabe driving instructor does not need to know all about the innards and regulations pertaining to HGV trucks and Pendolino trains, the wannabe PPL instructor has no need of the majority of the knowledge that is in the CPL examinations.

I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying.

I see no evidence that the old system, which did not require CPL knowledge, produced inferior FIs who in turn produced poorly trained PPLs. Au contraire, the usual consensus seems to be that the training was better in the old days. A return to the old system is eminently sensible and to be commended.

[shortstripper]

But what is stopping him or her doing the CPL exams and flight test? Money? In the case of the 200 hour PPL, perhaps this is the case. The 700 hour PPL would have difficulty saying they were short of cash. Please don't say they don't have the time. If they don't, how will they ever find time to instruct. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the ground exams? Need I say any more?


Why do you think an experienced PPL can't argue they're short of cash? I am, I have a poorly payed job (for what the hours I do and the qualifications I have ... so it's not exclusive to FI's) and a large family. I have managed to continue to fly for the last 20 years by various means, but I sure as hell can say that I am short of cash :sad: Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course!

In France PPL's teach and the French do not interpret the requirement to demonstrate CPL knowledge as having to pass the CPL ground exams ... so why do we here? I'd happily self study and take the exams if I didn't have to attend GS to do it ... again, this is somthing you didn't have to do before. The CPL exams have now been geared toward the fast track CPL / fATPL and the way they are layed down is absolutely irrellevent to PPL instruction. There must be a way to demonstrate in-depth knowledge for PPL instructors that doesn't mean you have to prove you can go on to be an airline pilot ... Many of us don't want too!

SS

[BristolScout]

I'm firmly of the opinion that one can't ever have too much theoretical knowledge of aviation related subjects to perform efficiently as a flying instructor. Agreed that one doesn't use a fraction of it on a day-to-day basis but, just occasionally, the student will ask a deep and penetrating question and it helps to be able to answer it.

As to PPL instructors, if they can achieve the required standard they will be a great asset to any FTO. A certain venerable gentleman, who was the doyen of FI examiners spent an entire career instructing on a PPL (and his theoretical knowledge was legendary).

If I have a discomfort about the well-being of the instructing trade it is wondering where the next generation of career instructors will come from. When I started in the late seventies an instructor with all the various teaching and examining credentials made a fairly modest salary but it was enough to service the mortgage on a reasonable home. Nowadays the financial rewards are still modest but the property values have raced ahead to the degree that only someone with independent means can realistically contemplate a career in instruction. Worrying.

[shortstripper]

Nowadays the financial rewards are still modest but the property values have raced ahead to the degree that only someone with independent means can realistically contemplate a career in instruction.

Very true, but the same can be said of many occupations. The sad fact is, that as hard as it is, it's no arguement for singling instructors out for special treatment. Let's face it, taking a typical PPL (with a couple of hundred hours) who decides to then go on to instruct, you're looking at what? £15-20K to add a basic CPL and FIR. A two year diploma course in most subjects probably costs similar. The wages for a job that the Diploma gets you will probably yield similar money for the first few years. The difference is that flight training doesn't qualify for grants or cheap loans ... which is a pity. Sad fact of life is that certain jobs will always be thought of as a stepping stones to a future career higher up the ladder. Those wishing to do such jobs are usually young, single and willing to accept the pay in order to progress their career. The problem on this forum is that many seem to think that flying instructors are unique!

SS

[timzsta]

There is talk around my parts that rather like the IMC rating the BCPL may well be about to go. My excellent source (an FIE) informs me that the CAA and EASA are steadfastly at the moment sticking to the line that if you are a BCPL holder and you want to continue to be remunerated for working as an FI you will have to go to Gatwick and take the CPL writtens.

I can think of one or two experienced PPL's at my club who would make very good instructors and others who definetely would not. There is a great difference between making the decision to go flying and making the decision to go flying with a student, something not well understood by a lot of PPL's. All very good going off in your own well maintained Warrior or Arrow with full IFR kit Garmins etc on a marginal day. Very different in a knackered old Cessna with just a VOR.

The issue people like myself have is the old BCPL system enabled people to get into a position to be paid for flying without having taking any more exams then those they are to teach, and have IMC priveleges embedded for life in their license without the need to ever take an IMC renewal. The rest of us have had to pay large sums of money to get into the position to earn not alot and have to pay out each year to keep our IR's current. There are also those who of course abuse their BCPL and get remunerated for things that they should not be getting remunerated for, taking yet more money away from those of us who hold full, proper, professional pilots licenses.

[TheOddOne]

My excellent source informs me that the CAA and EASA are steadfastly at the moment sticking to the line that if you are a BCPL holder and you want to continue to be remunerated for working as an FI you will have to go to Gatwick and take the CPL writtens.

I DID the CPL writtens, took and passed the CPL flight test and have a BCPL on the strength of that. I guess that my licence will disappear along with all other national licences and ratings. Personally at the moment I'm content with having SEP, FI(R) CRI and IMC ratings on my BCPL and for the forseeable future. My ambition lies in getting the first solo restriction removed, then the night and applied instrument restrictions. In the fullness of time and considerable more experience, I'd like to consider an Examiner rating, but that's some way ahead. I don't know how many other people are currently in my position with a BCPL gained by passing the CPL stuff, passing few, I'd guess. I might have to look at an upgrade to CPL, but it's not something I need, I'd only really do it to protect my considerable investment so far. Presumably an upgrade would be to a JAA-CPL, which would automatically transfer to an EASA-CPL?

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[timzsta]

If you did the CPL writtens and took the flight test why didn't you apply for a full CPL in the first place?

[VFE]

I think you'll find there are EU laws on making people unemployable in the manner being suggested, at the very least there will be compensation due.

If the above mentioned proposal to make BCPL holders with an FI rating unemployed goes through prepare to see the state of instructing go downhill DRASTICALLY very quickly. It is a nonsensical idea tantamount to putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

EASA? I've sh1t 'em! :rolleyes:

VFE.

[BEagle]

Guys, gals and...others. Would your BCPL FIs be OK to accept an EAS PPL/FI Rating, as long as it conferred the right to receive remuneration?

Just a question - because I think that's what will be on offer.

[VFE]

I cannot speak for them personally but IMC instructing aside, I do believe the fear of not being remunerated is what scares most so yes, I would imagine they'd be appeased with one of those EASA doobriwazzanames... so long as they don't have to go back to the classroom!

VFE.

[TheOddOne]

If you did the CPL writtens and took the flight test why didn't you apply for a full CPL in the first place?

timzsta,

...because under the old 3-tier medical system, I could only get a Class II, not a Class I, due eyesight correction required (JUST outside the limit). The BCPL only needed an old Class II as it was for all types of aerial work, not Public Transport. The CPL/ATPL at the time (1989) required a CAA Class I. The 'new' JAR Class I correction requirements changed recently, bringing me comfortably INSIDE the limit, so I now have a full JAR Class I medical, initial issue at the age of 57! (So I guess I must be fairly fit & healthy).

TheOddOne

[timzsta]

The Odd One - I never knew that re the Class 2 and the BCPL. Learn something each day.

[Pringle 1]

Guys,

Beagle, I thought you were against hours builders who were aiming at the airlines. If so why say this:

"As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds."

Make your mind up! Who do you want, hours builders or committed instructors!

Westmorland. You say:

"I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying."

If you are so clever do the exams. It may save embarrassment when your PPL wannabe airline pilot asks you a difficult question..... If you can't answer them perhaps you could ask a CPL qualified instructor. (who will be paid the same if he or she is instructing to PPL level). I would rather fly all the time as well but there is this thing called the long briefing I have to do which seems to help the student as well!

Shortstripper. You say:

"Why do you think an experienced PPL can't argue they're short of cash? I am, I have a poorly payed job (for what the hours I do and the qualifications I have ... so it's not exclusive to FI's) and a large family. I have managed to continue to fly for the last 20 years by various means, but I sure as hell can say that I am short of cash :sad: Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course!

Sorry, it was a sweeping statement to say that all PPL's with a few hours under thier belts must be loaded. I too have been scratching around for the last 20 years picking up an hour here and an hour there.

I understand it is difficult, but I completed my ground exams whilst in full time employment by correspondence course . I completed My FI(R) course whilst in full time employment on my days off and holidays. I also have kids and have had to sacrifice time with them and my wife to get where I am. I have to instruct part-time as I need a full time job outside aviation to pay the mortgage and feed the kids.

Almost time to put the violin back in it's case........ I fear those who will suffer most from Beagle's proposals are committed, weekend, CPL qualified PPL instructors.....Like me!

[llanfairpg]

Shame none of you have mentioned the most important instructional quality, enthusiasm and a shame you cannot sit an examination for it. A student wants to sit by someone who is enthusiastic about teaching them to fly, it matters not one jot if that instructor can plot his way across the Atlantic or describe how an FMS works.

[BEagle]

I have nothing against people wishing to join the airlines per se.

But having to pay back the costs of CPL and FI Rating is an enormous burden - and of course they'd be off to anyone offering them an airline post as soon as possible. Because of debt!

Whereas being able to hold some day job whilst building pre-entry hours for the PPL/FI course would be more affordable. Then recover the cost of the course by working as a PPL/FI. Once that's paid for, save for the CPL course - or take out a loan. Then no need to build hours after the CPL course, so off to an airline with all that CPL knowledge fresh in the mind....

[timzsta]

No doubt about it. One day I want to fly for an airline. That is my aim. But I can tell you at the moment, nothing, nothing at all, beats the thrill of watching one of my students flying solo around the circuit, thinking "I and I alone have taught him how to do that".

This misnoma that modern day Instructors are just hours builders is horlicks. It maybe the ultimate desire to get into the Airlines but don't think for a minute please that whilst we are FI's we are 100% commited to the student and their development.

I put the students development and need first, second and third. Then it's the Flying Clubs need, then its my development as a professional pilot last and very last.

[negativeROC]

I think the arguements here are a little off target. I'm one of the ones that had to go well over the top to become a career instructor and naturally would feel agrieved if those that follow could do the same job far quicker, far cheaper, for the same reward.

That said, the arguement is not with those individuals but with the regulators and their final salary pensions that make rules only to be undone when they don't suit. Someone, somewhere laid down that PPL FI's were not the they way to go so changed it all. Now apparently all that was wrong. Who made the decision, why, where are they now and if still inpost should be fired for getting it so wrong. I would so love a job with so much influence yet so little responsibility for the outcome of that influence.

-VERoC

[VFE]

Those sort of guys never get rooted out because they just rewrite the rules to keep themselves in! :}

As long as job & pay for existing instructors is under no threat from any changes to the system then I see no basis for complaint from us really.

Times change in aviation - deal with it.

VFE.

[Whopity]

The requirement for CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO Annex 1 For many years the UK treated the FIC and its pre-entry flight test as being equivalent to CPL level knowledge. It only changed when JAR-FCL loomed and it was assumed that Europe would require the UK to meet the ICAO CPL requirement in full. The UK aligned this requirement some 10 years ahead of JAR-FCL, and with it came the BCPL (Restricted) for aeroplanes but, the helicopter world never had an equivalent licence.

There has been a lot of talk of the merits of one system versus the other but what exactly does EASA plan? Whilst there are a number of rumours on this thread the following is the 1st draft LAFI privileges currently in EASA Part FCL

FCL.I.1.825 LAFI - Privileges and conditions (a) The privileges of the holder of an LAFI rating are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(1) a basic LAPL, in the case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(2) a LAPL, in the appropriate aircraft category;
(3) Class, type or group ratings to be endorsed on a LAPL, in the appropriate aircraft category;
(4) a night qualification in the appropriate aircraft category, provided such a qualification is held;
(5) towing and aerobatic qualifications in the appropriate aircraft category, provided such a qualification is held;
(6) cloud flying qualification, in the case of sailplanes, provided such a qualification is held
(7) Mountain ratings, provided such rating is held, in the appropriate aircraft category
(8) A LAFI rating, provided that the instructor has given instruction for at least 3 years

[BEagle]

Whopity, as I mentioned to you the other day, the information I have recently had confirmed is that EC states will file a variance from ICAO which will permit a PPL/FI to instruct for remuneration at PPL (not just LAPL) level without holding a CPL.

The LAFI would probably then become superfluous, as regards LAPL (Aeroplane) instruction.

So that no-one is confused by the forthcoming NPPL changes, it has been decided to include a clear statement in the AIC (agreed on Friday 25th Jan) that NO CHANGES have been introduced affecting the current requirements for instruction on SSEAs.

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

It seems that this is a done deal, if not yet ratified by the powers that be. Is this the case? I hope someone has done a risk assesment. It can get complicated when you deliberately drop standards...a field day for the lawyers out there.

Just so I now how long it is before my club start saying that they can't afford to pay me as much and that 21 year old Johnny is much more flexible than I, because he can turn up every weekend and even on some weekdays........do you know when the first new PPL instructors will be putting on their 4 gold bars and Transair wings?

Please could you also clarify, if you know, where an existing CPL qualified instructor will stand with medicals, if only instructing to PPL level?

I just hope we don't have a deep recession in the industry/economy. I remember what it was like after September the 11th when many part-timers were laid off .............until it suited the clubs to have them back again! If the recession deepens and you were a low hour PPL/FI, living at home with mum and dad and your club said they could only afford to pay £5 per hour with no retainer, I suspect you would accept it. I would not be able to justify the cost and time my instructing takes from my family. So much for the changes not having an impact on existing instructors!

One final question, please Beagle. Will your club be paying CPL qualified instructors the same rates as new PPL qualified ones or will you reward their extra experience and qualifications. A cheeky question I know, but I think it gets to the root of the issue.

NegativeROC - I agree with your thoughts on the reglulators......but they are ultimately driven (paid) by the industry.

[timzsta]

(8) seems interesting to me.... PPL/FI's teaching FIC???

[BEagle]

Pringle1 - we won't give a rat's about the licence held by the instructor as we'll only offer jobs to people who can prove that they have sound personal flying skills, acceptable interpersonal skills, the ability to impart instruction and the capacity to assess the student's flying.

We don't like precocious idiots with Captain Kellog wings or bars, by the way!


timzsta - I will be objecting to the ludicrous notion of 'LAFI's becoming FIC instructors as soon as the NPA is released. In fact, I think that the whole LAFI concept is an utter crock now that the PPL/FI is going to be so readily available.

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

I know I'm going on a bit but surely this is a contadiction:

"I will be objecting to the ludicrous notion of 'LAFI's becoming FIC instructors as soon as the NPA is released."

Why will you be objecting when you also say:

" we won't give a rat's about the licence held by the instructor as we'll only offer jobs to people who can prove that they have sound personal flying skills, acceptable interpersonal skills, the ability to impart instruction and the capacity to assess the student's flying."

What if the LAFI had 3000 hours instruction under their belt and all the qualities you mention above? Unless you think that a LAFI will have less of a knowledge base...... I can't see the differerence between this and the CPL/PPL FI argument?

At least if there were a division between the privileges of a LAFI and CPL qualified JAA FI's there would be room for everyone.

Anyway, at least we can agree on the Wings and Gold bars thing.

[timzsta]

Because the only people who should be teaching the teachers are professionally qualified pilots. Those who have demonstrated by passing a multitude of exams and skills tests that they have the necessary technical knowledge and flying ability to teach people to instruct.

The scenario we have above is that somebody could do a LAFI rating, then work at a club doing a couple of trial lessons each Sunday and after 3 years and a couple of hundred hours of Instructional time be teaching on the LAFI course which is a complete load of horlicks.

I mentioned the above to an FIE yesterday and his reply was "expect mushroom shaped cloud in the megaton range to form over b*ll**** castle".

I have just been looking at LASORS but I cant find where the current requirements to become a Fl Course Instructor are. Did however find FIE. Anyone point me in the right direction?

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

I take it, using the logic in your last comment that if a PPL FI had 500 hours instruction and were made of the right stuff etc as per Bertie Bassett's post you would support them becoming a paid FIC instructor?.... or would this be encroaching on your territory as the push behind this thread is encroaching on mine?

[BEagle]

No reason why not.

But that's a PPL/FI, emphatically not a 'LAFI'.

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

Sorry to direct everything at you, but you seem to be the one with his finger on the pulse.

So where are we putting the limit on what a PPL FI can teach under the proposed new regs? I thought it was basic PPL instruction?

Am I right that if these plans go ahead a PPL FIC instructor could train a CPL qualifed student for his or her FI(R)? The student could then eventually end up teaching to CPL level having been taught by a PPL ?

Will the new PPL instructor be able to teach IMC (if it still exists), aeros, IR, examine etc if his student is a PPL....for money? (I am not including those with grandfather rights here). If so this is surely not in the spirit of things!

[BEagle]

You'll have to wait (as will I) until the EASA NPAs are announced in a few months' time.

However, I suspect that any FI will only be permitted to instruct to the level of the licences and ratings which they hold themselves. Whether for remuneration or not.

[homeguard]

Pringle1

What is the objection to a PPL/FI teaching a CPL holder? The CPL holder will be trained on their FIC to teach student pilots, something they haven't yet done. Their FIC instructor (ATPL, CPL or PPL) will have a knowledge and qualification that they do not. That is to instruct/teach a pilot for a licence or rating. Neither of which is covered in CPL knowledge or flight test.

On any FIC a presumption is made that the basic skill and knowledge is held. The course is to use those skills to teach others. Should you have an ATPL, CPL or PPL the FIC therefore remains the same.

Is there an argument that could support a view, held by too many, that those such as BEAgle and many, many others - who may not wish to a have a commercial licence, should not teach on an FIC course. The commercial carriage of passengers is not what is being taught.

The FIC minimum knowledge, just the same, should be set to ensure a professional knowledge level of the basics of flight, navigation and the atmosphere. The CPL studies, however, are much wider than that and it follows that much of it is superflous to need.

[BEagle]

Actually, although I've held an ATPL for quite a while now, I don't have any intention on moving from UK/FE PPL to FIC instructor, to instruct CPL students or anything of that sort. Just PPL-level is fine for me!

[Pringle 1]

Homeguard,

Unfortunatlely for some, like me, money is an issue. Terms and conditions are bad enough at the moment even with a shortage of instructors. An influx of PPL FI's will certainly not improve conditions. I was able to justify the cost of CPL/FIC/Class 1 medical etc to my family on the basis that I would be able to slowly recover the costs over the years. What frustrates me the most is the existing instructors who are selling out their colleagues at the lower end of the food chain.

As I have stated in previous posts I believe the only reason the rules are changing is because it suits the industry to save costs. As ever, no thought is given to those who have supported the industry over the years.

If I were an FIC instructor the new plans might be a good thing as I would be waiting for the influx of new PPL FI candidates. If I were an examiner I would also be unaffected by new low hour PPL FI's.......But, what happens when new PPL FI's become experienced PPL FI's and the industry is running out of commercial instructors? (Lets face it, in this new structure, would you really pay for a CPL if you didn't have intentions of moving on from instructing?)........ Perhaps the industry and Senior CFI's could put together a paper saying how ridiculous it is that PPL's, as the most experienced instructors on the planet, can't teach to CPL level? Heh presto entry requirements and pay fall again.

Those of you who hope to instruct long term and are staying quiet, remember.... "you reap what you sow!!!"

[2close]

It also amazes me that people (myself included!) are readily willing to accept the legal liability that goes with flight instruction for such paltry rewards. It is not only the employer that is liable but the FI as well.

Will PPL FI's, who would in the main be part-time 'self-employed' operators be willing to accept the liability of the mass of health & safety legislation that will apply to them abd with effect from March 2008 the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 for the pennies they will be paid?

[shortstripper]

Pringle ....

For goodness sake, get a life! If you feel sooooo threatened by the idea that PPL's might once again instruct, then you really are insecure. I'm just a lowly PPL, but I've been flying for the last 25 years and have seen many changes. Hopefully a few of the many to come will be for the better! I was taught by a PPL and to be honest the only crap instructor I ever had was for my IMC. He was an obvious "time filler" CPL, and preferred to "demonstrate" rather than give proper instruction. In the end, feeling very embarrassed I went to the CFI, who changed him for a real instructor ... funnily enough a PPL :hmm:

I have always said there will be room for the career instructors, teaching ME, IR, CPL ect. Ok, I can see your frustration if PPL's can teach these higher levels, but realistically, what's the chance of that? To teach ME and IR, you would have to at least have the ratings. Most ME/IR rated pilots ARE CPL's, and the few that are not, are at least just as well qualified in those disciplines. I don't think you have to worry about too many ME/IR rated PPL's flooding the market! Most with those qualifications in the PPL catagory are very busy business men who use the ratings to get around Europe and have no time to play at being instructors.

I can also see your point about CPL qualified instructors. If you can become a CPL with 200 hours, why would you do an FIR? Why indeed? In the past, you needed 700 hours to get a CPL, so instructing was a good hours builder. But in that case, why do CPL's now, who want to be airline pilots, bother with FIR? Beat's me? .... but they do! I don't think the rule change will make much difference. It didn't before. All it did was exclude a generation of experience to the newly qualified pilots of the 90's who seem to have missed out on the idea that flying can be a lot more fun than £150 cups of coffee at surrounding airfields. Thank goodness the microlight fraternity popped up! If not all the fun in aviation would have been snuffed out :ugh:

SS

[Solar]

I see "The Westmoreland Flye" in post 10 mentions the hassles and costs involved for the exams, I found on the CAA site that the exams could be taken a several locations in the mainland UK but when I queried the distance learning school about sitting the exams in Glasgow I was told that it only applies to the ATPL's and not the CPL's (and before anybody asks I only want/need the CPL for instruction), bit strange as I understand the the exams are basically the same only less subjects on the CPL. I'm sure there is some CAA logical explanation for it!!!!!

[TheOddOne]

I'm sure there is some CAA logical explanation for it!!!!!

The word for today is 'oxymoron', WRT 'CAA' and 'logical'

TOO

[Whopity]

I have always said there will be room for the career instructors, teaching ME, IR, CPL ect. Ok There will always be a requirement but, where will they come from? If we can service the recreational industry with PPL instructors, what incentive will there be to pay the additional costs to do the same thing at commercial level, especially if the MPL takes off, and all commercial single engine instruction will become a glorified PPL. There is already an issue finding MPL instructors with 1500 hous MP operation, who will be prepared to work at any time day and night in Simulators!

[BEagle]

I might be tempted to do a little MPL sim instruction - for €100K pa!

[411331]

Couldn't agree more with Pringle 1. Why should all the hard work, CPL exams, hours building, class 1 medical, CPL course etc etc be undervalued by an "easier" route to an FI rating. For a career instructor, by maintaining the route as it currently stands, although be it difficult and expensive, means there are fewer of us but gives the job more status and more chance of earning a decent wage.

[Pringle 1]

411331,

Nice to hear I'm not the only one! I think many others hope they will be 'out the other side,' flying airliners by the time this kicks in and consequently, assume these changes won't affect them.

[tunalic2]

It does seem extremely unfair to those that have gone to the effort of achieving FI status by the present standards(and hurdles), to have this removed.
I sympathise
T2

[shortstripper]

Whilst I do sympathise, I do still think it's the right way forward.

What saddens me is that the system was changed to force instructors to have CPL's in the first place. The old PPL FI system worked ok, so why did they change it. If nothing had been changed, nobody would be moaning or inconvenienced now. If the change back then was so necessary, then it should remain now. I do not believe it was the right decision then, so I believe bringing back PPL instructors is the correct approach now.

I'm sorry that many instructors feel aggrieved, but it is interesting to note that many CPL's who instruct, but started as PPL instructors, support the move. I know FI pay is crap, it has always been so and probably will always remain so. But then, look at farm workers, horsey girls, lab technicians, ect ect. Many professions in life are notoriously underpaid (and not just unskilled ones). It's just supply and demand. The demand for flying training is there, but at a finite cost. If it gets too expensive, people will simply stop training. At the same time, there are plenty who fly who'd like to teach, but again, if it is too expensive to get the qualifications, they will not. Those on a career path to the airlines need hours. They can hour build in the States, or get a job instructing or whatever. The poor wage is offset by the "cheap" hours they build, so they suit themselves and therefore have no cross to bear in my book. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but so is life .. accept it, or do more than simply moan to change it.

Those on a mission to become career instructors should still have a path. After all, PPL instructors will not (or rather should not) be able to teach higher than their qualification. There won't be that many multi engine IR rated PPL instructors about, so the career instructor, who goes from PPL to CPL/ME/IR should have a place. As it now stands, as an instructor needs a CPL to instruct, there are many more instructors with these higher qualifications about, therefore there is more competition for the career instructor from his/her peers. Take out the pure airline seeking CPL's from the instructor pool, and the chance of finding work for advanced training increases as there are fewer FI's with the required ratings.

I might be wrong ... but then? Funny thing is, I was flying when we had PPL instructors. Nothing much really seems to have changed in the great scale of things, but a lot of the fun seems to have left GA and transferred to the microlight fraternity who are now booming ... Why's that then?

SS

[VFE]

I can really see a problem shortage of suitably qualified instructors at CPL level in this country shortly... if not already. My hunch is much more advanced training will be moved overseas with a small core of IR instructors left creaming the milk off the many in the UK.

Rarely does a newly minted CPL/IR fATPL holder decide to forget airline flying and stick with instructing long enough to aquire the associated ratings to instruct advanced students.

What background have most advanced instructors come from? The answer is probably via the old CAA CPL route. How many people still go through this route as a viable means of obtaining pilot work? Not many I bet.

VFE.

[Heli-Jock]

Here Here, i agree with you whole heartedly!
I have spent vast sums of hard earned to gain my FI,but had to do the ATPL's and the commercial course to get it.
To now, open up the back door and let any T,D or H, do it, just doesnt seem fair to me:=

[VFE]

At least you'll have the option of moving on to CPL instruction and possibly IR should you wish later on in your career.

VFE.

[shortstripper]

At least you'll have the option of moving on to CPL instruction and possibly IR should you wish later on in your career. Exactly!

To now, open up the back door and let any T,D or H, do it, just doesnt seem fair to me It's not open to any T,D or H! You'd still have to pass the FIR and as PPL's are often far more experienced than CPL's these days, that is rather insulting to PPL's generally!

If you really wanted to be selective, you'd select potential FIR's by flying experience, teaching experience and aptitude. Certainly, just the fact that they have a CPL (which to be blunt is little reflection of skill or experience) means nothing about their ability to teach flying skills at PPL level. To be fair, the CPL is a reasonable measure of "standard", but that could easily be measured without the need to become a CPL.

SS

[The Westmorland Flye]

Predictably this discussion has settled into two camps...

- The "over my dead body" people who had to do CPL exams in order to then do the FI and therefore think everyone else should have to go through the same pain.

- The "I'd love to do the FI but the CPL requirement is a disincentive" people.

There is, of course a group of people we don't really hear from and that is those that got their PPL FI rating before the requirement for CPL exams was imposed and were given a BCPL to keep things above board. It would be interesting to hear from these people whether the advent of CPL qualified FIs improved PPL instruction standards or whether it was really just an exercise in massively increasing the cost of getting the FI rating.

[TheOddOne]

The Westmorland Flye

...well I'm not in any of your categories!

I'm a FI in possession of a BCPL which I gained by taking the CPL exams and the CPL test when the BCPL first came out nearly 20 years ago, but didn't do the FI course until last year. All in all, I reckon I must have spent the equivalent in today's money of the thick end of £50k before I received my very first pay cheque earned flying. Mind you, that has been spent over 25 years, much of it on recreational flying and it's ALL been fun, so what the heck?

I'd be very happy to work alongside people with a PPL and a FI rating who were paid the same as me, provided they were good at what they do. I do believe that experience and ability to teach are FAR more important than a paper qualification. Don't demean the CPL, though, it isn't easy to do (wasn't for me, anyhow, doing it in my spare time). I found the FIC much tougher, but actually instructing is another ball game altogether, I'm REALLY starting to learn how to fly, now!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[The Westmorland Flye]

Don't demean the CPLNothing was further from my mind! I take my hat off to those that have done the CPL, especially if only in order to instruct ab initio PPL. That doesn't alter my opinion that it's an unnecessarily burdensome requirement.

By all means have an exam as part of the FI training which tests theoretical knowledge that's applicable to the role of the FI. That would make altogether too much sense though :ugh:

[Pringle 1]

The industry 'Big Wiggs' seem to have decided to support the cheapest option of employing PPL's to instruct. I do not agree with them, but have no power to stop it. If we are forced down this road, I believe the standards issue is the most important one to get right. For all the criticisms people have of the CPL system, it is a national standard, examined centrally by the CAA. This applies to the flying as well as the ground school.

Many believe there is a need for a new written exam or exams which exclude some of the less relevant CPL subjects. This would seem sensible. It would also seem sensible to have the exam set and marked at a central location (CAA). My experience of locally set examinations is far from satisfactory. There should be no chance of cheating or allowing 10 attempts at the exam to fill a club's instructor vacancies.

The experience levels required from PPL candidates should be higher than for CPL to allow for the lack of structure when hours building. Westmoorland/Shortstripper can you at least agree this point. You keep going on about how many PPLs' have more experience than some CPL's. Not if the PPL has 200 hours they don't!!! At the moment it seems that the hours requirement will be the same whether CPL or PPL. This must mean a reduction in minimum standards.

To fit with the spirit of these changes surely a PPL/FI should only be able to teach to basic PPL level. This should not include the IR, IMC or aerobatics, even if the student they are teaching is a PPL. I am concerned that the goal posts are already moving away from instructing as a profession towards it being a hobby for the rich and/or retired airline/military pilots.

VFE - I agree with your thoughts on advanced training moving overseas . I may be wrong, but I don't think the new proposals will prevent a PPL teaching the IR. The principal seems to be the instructor can teach up to his or her own qualifications. A PPL/IR with FI rating would seem to fit into that bracket. Should be a nice little number for a retired airline pilot who has lost his Class 1 medical. So much for instructor career progression. Any thoughts Beagle?

Now the thorny issue of money. Some seem to consider any discussion on this subject as vulgar. Peronally, I am forced to instruct part-time because the pay is so poor. I would love to go full time but wouldn't be able to pay the bills. I teach to basic PPL level. An influx of PPL/IR's will have a negative effect on my pay and conditions. Supply and demand! At the moment I still have the hope that one day I will move onto more advanced instructing, as the wage would allow me to go full time. If these new plans spead to include other ratings and or licences this avenue will be closed to me any many others who hold similar ambitions. So much for career progression, again!

In my view we should be very cautious of letting the number of CPL instructors fall, which they inevitably will, if pay and conditions deteriorate. I would estimate that around 50% of the students I have taught have harboured some ambition to go commercial. If the UK clubs cannot provide the product these people want, they wont even walk through the clubhouse door. If the lack of suitably qualified pilots looks likely to affect the economy, govenment run authorities (CAA, EASA etc) will be forced to allow the likes of Ryanair to source a more cost effective option. This could exclude SEP flying altogether which isn't good for any of us.... PPL or CPL.

So those making these decisions.... please get the balance right as the stakes are high.

[homeguard]

Pringle1

The point that you are missing is that only since JAA has it been a requirement to hold a CPL to be paid as an FI. The wages paid, other than allowing for inflation, has not changed over the last 9 years just the same. PPL/FI were paid before JAA and reality will be that they will continue to be paid. Even when you take out the CPL requirement a PPL will still be required to make a large investment to be an instructor and also to maintain the rating. They will insist on payment in most cases. If they do not wish to be paid they will waive payment as of now.

One further point. It is not the role of the 'Safety Regulation Group' to protect the wages of instructors at PPL or any other level.

[The Westmorland Flye]

Some very interesting points, Pringle. Here are my thoughts...

1. If my experience us anything to go by, there is a desperate and worsening shortage of flight instructors at present. My school's training programme is entirely limited by the number of instructor hours it can procure. So I think that the supply/demand situation for FIs will remain favourable to the FI community.

2. I have no problem with a relevant theory exam, though in my opinion that should form part of the FI training, not be, as at present, an entry qualification. Central examinations would be no problem provided central doesn't mean only twice a year at Gatwick! For those of us who live up north, that's an immediate increase in cost of several hundred quid and a quite unnecessary inconvenience. To be honest, given that relatively few schools do the FI training courses, I can't really see why they should be deemed incapable of administering the theory exam given that they are approved to do the flight training.

3. Hours. I would suggest a minimum of 300 hours (200 PIC) for all candidates. I guess the entrance test flight could be retained to weed out those that have managed to fail to meet the input standard by that time.

4. Yes, the basic PPL FI should only instruct ab initio. If he has an IMC rating then he could do a further FI (IMC) course to qualify him to instruct that (actually, I am amazed that this isn't already a requirement!). Ditto Night.

5. Money. Always a trick question! To avoid the school attempting to discount, or pocket the difference, all ab initio payment should be at the same rate. Obviously advanced training (IMC, Night, IR, whatever) could command a premium and for the most part your average PPL FI isn't going to go there. If he does, then he deserves the money.

6. I don't understand your point about ex. airline pilots coming in and spoiling your fun. Surely they can do that right now - they already have all the paper qualifications and merely need to do the FI course.

[Pringle 1]

Westmoorland/Homeguard

Thanks for the replies. Its a shame these discussions are only for our own amusement, but it helps to get things off one's chest.

I agree the 'Safety Regulation Group' is not responsible for securing instructor pay and working conditions, they should be respnsible for safety issues ...and maintaining Standards. I trust this is what they will do.....rather than lowering them in order to prop up the industry. Let's wait and see?!! Don't let's pretend that safety is anything to do with this. The industry is in crisis and clutching at straws trying to justify its actions by looking to the past rather than thinking what will be best for the future.

I accept that the old system worked in its day.....In those days 700 hours SEP were valued by potential airline employers. Now,generally, they are not. Airlines now prefer an integrated student who will pay for a type rating. This is why there is a shortage of instructors. Lets not kid ourselves that most of the PPL instructors of old, didn't want to be airline pilots...they just built a few hours instructing on a PPL before playing their hand. Of course, some did hold a genuine desire to instruct for the long term, as I do.... with my CPL. The reason I have a CPL is that I was told by the aviation establishment that it was essential to have a CPL to be good enough to work as an instructor. Forgive me if I don't trust the law makers now they want to change things back because it suits them!

If the flying clubs pay peanuts they will get monkeys ......or alternatively someone who doesn't need to be paid a decent wage. e.g. ex airline/military pilot or wealthy PPL. People in my situation will be forced out of the market because we are unable to compete. I predict there will no longer be a shortage of instructors when the number of PPL students reduces. I believe this will happen if there is no benefit to getting a SEP PPL as the first step to a commercial licence. This problem will be exaserpated if the number of PPL FI's increases (not forgetting the microlight and MPL alternatives which are already out there or on the way).

Who do you think we will all be training in this new Utopia? PPL's who want to be PPL/FI's? I guess we could all check each other out to keep current.

I wonder how I would be received by pilots on the airline forums if I started spouting off that I should be let loose on a 747 because I thought it was too much bother to do the course they had been through.

I think we instructors must have self esteem issues!

[BillieBob]

I agree the 'Safety Regulation Group' is not responsible for securing instructor pay and working conditions, they should be respnsible for safety issues ...and maintaining Standards.Unfortunately, that is no longer the case (or at least it won't be in a couple of years time). Once EASA assumes responsibility for Ops and Licensing, the function of SRG will be solely to enforce whatever EASA tells it to enforce. It will not be able to 'maintain standards', 'regulate in the interests of safety' or any other of the things that it currently does. SRG will become, effectively, the UK FSDO of the United States of Europe. Welcome to the brave new world!

[TheOddOne]

The reason I have a CPL is that I was told by the aviation establishment that it was essential to have a CPL to be good enough to work as an instructor.

Pringle 1,

I don't believe that this was the case. My take on it was that 'if you're being PAID for flying, then you must have a COMMERCIAL qualification'. I don't recall anyone saying it had anything to do with proving you could teach anyone how to fly - that's what the FIC has always been about.

If I may draw a comparison:

I think it's perfectly legal for you to go out and buy a bus and give your friends free rides in it. However, to charge anyone for a ride, you must have a PSV licence.

The CPL course is partly about learning more about the weather and aircraft performance, so that you can make more considered decisions about whether or not to fly when faced with commercial pressures to make money (either for yourself or someone else). Along the way it also attempts to hone your personal hands-on flying skills. The FI course does FAR more in this regard, of course.

Would you be content with a FIC that was expended to include more on this commercial decision-making if the candidate didn't have a CPL?

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[Pringle 1]

TheOddOne,

Yes, sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about paid instruction. i.e It was implied that I wasn't good enough to instruct for money if I was a PPL. Now apparently I would be.

Sobering thoughts Billiebob. At least we know they won't mess it up like JAA??!!

Westmoorland,

I didn't rally answer you last time.. my main concern over ex airline Pilots was that if they could instruct on a PPL rather than a CPL, many who had been shown the back door to commercial aviation for medical reasons would be able to take jobs from those on the commercial instructor route. At the moment they are confined to simulator work.

[excrab]

Pringle,

I don't think there would be many ex airline pilots currently working as sim instructors who will try to take the jobs you refer to. Currently a sim instructor teaching on a level D sim in the UK can earn between £500 - 1000 per day (if they are prepared to do two sims in one day ie about 15 hrs work). Given the choice of doing that or bashing around in a seneca I know which I would choose.

However, there is also perhaps another point which should be considered. If an ex airline pilot with say 15,000hrs of commercial IFR experience is allowed to teach IRs on a PPL, might that experience be useful to the flying school and the students, possible more so than a CPL/IR with the minimum IF requirement to be an IR instructor. Whilst there must be a career path for instructors should the needs of the students also be taken into account.

I am not, by the way, suggesting that all airline pilots would be good at teaching IRs just because they are airline pilots, or that CPL/IR instructors wouldn't be. However I know that when I instruct instrument flying nowdays for IMC ratings I do a much better job of it having spent the last 15 years flying multi-crew IFR than I used to when I had a CPL/IR and very little actual IFR experience.

[Pringle 1]

excrab,

All good points. I'm sure that the experience you mention would be invaluable and you are right there aren't many ex airline pilots at my club. I'm not surprised if they can make that kind of money in the sim.

What I am attempting to do here is get people like me to stand up for themselves. If you read the airline forums you will see that SSTR's are making it easier for those who have rich mums and dads, rather than those who have the best aptitude/skills, to get the job. Rightly many of you seem to think that this trend is destroying your terms and conditions. And you bemoan those who perpetuate the situation (comments on Ryanair spring to mind).

Very rarely do I read Airline pilots saying " what's best for the customer?"........Like cheap flights and arriving on time, or for that matter "what's best for the company?" Like cost cutting on type ratings to boost the profits. You strive for the best terms and conditions you can get and rightly so.

I view the subject of this threat as equivalent for the instructing trade. We are in the driving seat at the moment as there is a shortage of instructors, but rather than taking advantage of this and demanding better terms and conditions, many are finding reasons to do the opposite.

[excrab]

Pringle,

I can see the point you are making, but I'm not convinced that PPL instructors would lead to an erosion of terms and conditions.

When I started instructing I just had enough money to pay for an instructor course having been flying as a hobby for a number of years. I considered myself a "career instructor", that being my only aim, and spent six years and about 3500hrs instructing full time at a flying club before I even obtained my first commercial licence. By that time I was teaching night, multi, IMC and aerobatics as well as abinitio, all of those instructor ratings having been paid for by the flying club (because they knew that with no CPL I wasn't about to disappear quickly) and I was on a salary of £14k, which at the time compared well to that earned by teachers, policemen etc, averaged about £25 per hour looking at the hours flown each year, and would have allowed me to buy a house based on a mortgage of 3 times salary (just).

Bear in mind that was 16 years ago, and I think it is fair to say that being an instructor with a PPL didn't mean I would accept poor terms and conditions - I couldn't say "I'll instruct for £10 per hr because I need the hours to get a job with an airline" - I needed a decent salary to pay the bills and the rent and I was lucky enough to find a club to instruct at where that was possible.

Then as now there were those who were using it as a stepping stone to the airlines, and I would offer the opinion that it is those people who have always driven down terms and conditions, irrespective of what licence their instructor rating was attached to. I don't know the answer to your point about Ts and Cs, but I think that a few part time instructors with PPLs won't make it any worse, nor would full time ones for the same reasons I had when I was doing it.

[Pringle 1]

For all those who say pay for FI's will always be poor because the clubs can't afford it. ...

The back pages of Flight and other press suggest the rules of supply and demand do apply to this industry. Salaries of between 20 and 30 k for FI's and FI(R) (as far as I can tell to teach PPL level).

Enjoy it while it lasts though, pay will drop again as soon as the new PPL/FI's enter the market!

[RVR800]

Indeed... back to the national minimum wage.. oh sorry they are self-employed so it will be less that what the average office cleaner gets paid (again)

What is needed is a body that internationally agrees civil aviation requirements so that we dont continually have the vested interest mob agreeing to changes with other 'industry stakeholders" without any check or balance by other pilots or the voting public

Its all about money not quality this .. and a lack of accountability

The problem is aircraft owners object to their profits being eaten into by the teaching and learning process and they have in this case won the day:=

[The Westmorland Flye]

The problem is aircraft owners object to their profits being eaten into by the teaching and learning process and they have in this case won the day:=
Does anyone understand this assertion? As an aircraft owner that leases his aircraft out to a flying school, I can assure RVR800 that it's nigh on impossible to make any profit at all out of GA aircraft leasing and that the rate an instructor gets paid has no bearing whatsoever on the matter!