Instructing

[KandiFloss]

Dear ppruners,

I would be grateful for some advice. I hold a PPL, and am about to launch into my ATPL distance learning theory very shortly. However, a friend of mine mentioned the fact that the route into instructing may be changing. My question is, does any one know if this is true? I am aware of the current route, ATPL theory, CPL, Instructor rating. I don't want to spend lots of £ (and time + effort) on my ATPL theory, when I wont have to do it, if it's all going to change in the next few years. I estimate finishing my ATPL theory (due to work commintments) in 2012.

I recently spoke to an instructor at a FTO who told me about EASA, but he didn't think that the route into instructing will be changing.

I have had a look through the threads on this forum, but none answer my question.

Please help ... very confused :ugh:

... Also, I would be grateful if any instructors could be honest with the +'s and -'s of instructing (I already know that the pay isn't that brill)

Thank you for reading my thread and for any advice:)

[Duchess_Driver]

The current route into instructing does not necessarily have to include the airborne element of the CPL and there is no need for ATPL level theory.

If you do not have a CPL then you need to have at least the written elements in place as a pre-req for the FI course, thus demonstrating CPL level knowledge.

If you do not have the CPL issued, then you cannot earn money as an FI(A). Mircrolights have their own rules.

If I recall correctly then there will be no changes to these requirements with the introduction of EASA - but I'm sure Whopity will be along in a moment with the truth!

[blagger]

EASA =

- Still need CPL knowledge (i.e. exams passed) to do FI course

- PPL with FI rating will be able to be paid for instructing

However, if you've done the CPL or ATPL exams I think it would be mad not to do the CPL before your exam credit expires, so I think the number of PPL/FIs will still remain fairly limited.

[Whopity]

Under EASA you will be able to teach to PPL level and be remunerated as the holder of a PPL. It does however require more PIC experience before you can take the FI course and in cost terms that is not far off the cost of obtaining a CPL. Additionally the CPL exams that you have to take will expire for CPL issue in 3 years so why waste them. You certainly don't need ATPL level exams to instruct.

[KandiFloss]

Thanks for all replies :)

[LH2]

I do not suppose you speak French? If so, the route to become an FI does not involve taking CPL/ATPL theory, unless you want to. There are also possible financial advantages.

[FormationFlyer]

If so, the route to become an FI does not involve taking CPL/ATPL theory

I think that statement needs a LOT more clarification before recommending it as a possible route.

I doubt very much that instructors without the CPL level of knowledge will be accepted by EASA...let me check Part-FCL....

FCL.915.FI 2(b) For an FI(A) it will be a CPL or PPL with CPL theory.
Unless you want LAFI only...in which case just the LAPL would be needed.

So basically if you go down a route other than JAR-FCL FI you are taking a huge gamble as to the conversion requirements from the NAA to EASA and may well find yourself having to do it all over again at worst case.

Tread carefully friends!

[LH2]

I think that statement needs a LOT more clarification before recommending it as a possible route.

You're probably right, it does. :)

Your analysis is basically correct so far as I can tell.

To put it simply, if all you want is to instruct at PPL level (in principle, with the usual caveats as regards remuneration), then you can go for a "limited FI" rating, which is a French national rating--I believe, but would need to do further research to confirm, that you might be limited to training towards the issuance of a French licence (although this is still a JAR-FCL licence which can be subsequently converted to any other JAR country as per the usual rules). The other caveat is that you can only instruct on French soil, although your students can be from wherever.

With the EASA transition, this is expected to morph into a LAFI licence as you rightly state.

The restriction to instruct in French soil only is a bit of a showstopper for a foreigner, but this is (or at least until recently was) a popular option in France. The worst caveat though, and what puts many people off, is that there is no route to go from a limited FI (note that this is distinct from a "restricted" FI) to a JAR-FCL compliant FI ticket, other than redoing the whole FI course, on top of sitting the CPL exams.

In any case, if anyone thinks this option might suit them and wants to find out more, give the SEFA centre in Grenoble a call at +33.4.74.54.69.11 and they'll be happy to fill you in on the details.

As for the financial incentives I mentioned, that is a separate issue, compatible with either a limited or a full JAR-FCL compliant FI rating, and involves committing to giving a certain amount of instruction hours on a club "for free" in exchange for them financing a large part of the cost of your course (typically ~80%). Most instructors in France have gone this way, which is likely part of the reason "volunteer" instructing is so popular there. Again, the SEFA can give further details.

FF, in retrospect it's pretty clear that I had left out rather a lot of important info, thanks for pointing this out. :ok:

[BillieBob]

With the EASA transition, this is expected to morph into a LAFI licence as you rightly state.I understand that the LAFI was removed from Part FCL at the EASA Committee meeting in October 2010. The only instructional qualifications you will be able to put on a LAPL will be the FI(B) and FI(S)

[Whopity]

To put it simply, if all you want is to instruct at PPL level (in principle, with the usual caveats as regards remuneration), then you can go for a "limited FI" rating, which is a French national rating--I believe, Which will not exist after April 2012 when Part FCL becomes mandatory in all EU States including France.

[ifitaintboeing]

Whopity,

My understanding was that an NAA can choose to retain sub-ICAO licensing for Annex II aircraft. For example, the UK might choose to retain the NPPL for pilots to use on non-EASA certified aircraft.

ifitaint..

[FormationFlyer]

ifitaintboeing - AFAIK thats exactly what is happening in the UK. The NPPL has to be retained anyway to allow microlight pilots to operate...except now this means I now have to operate 3 licences..ho hum.

BillieBob I understand that the LAFI was removed from Part FCL at the EASA Committee meeting in October 2010

Hmm. They havent re-issued the Opinion since Apr 2010. Do you have any links to decisions of amendments they have made? I cant see anything obvious on the EASA website. Cheers.

[Whopity]

The NPPL has to be retained anyway to allow microlight pilots to operate...except now this means I now have to operate 3 licences..ho hum.
No, if you have a JAA/EASA Part FCL licence it will cover you for everything (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=620&pagetype=90&pageid=11675). Existing UK licences can indeed be retained for non EASA aircraft.1.5 The CAA intends to amend the Air Navigation Order so that EASA licences with the appropriate class ratings will be valid for Annex II aircraft within those classes; thereby avoiding the need for the holder of an EASA licence to also hold a national licence in order to fly an amateur-built aircraft or a Tigermoth, for example. (Note that the Air Navigation Order does not, and will not be able to, provide the legal powers to make a national licence valid for the piloting of an EASA aircraft). Microlight Licences issued pre 2002 are not NPPLs!.

[Le Bigleux]

Hi,

I can give some details about the French limited FI rating as I myself got one.

Historically the CPL theory was not needed in order to become an instructor in France. When the JAR-FCL was implemented, so was this requirement. Another new requirement was to take a mandatory course at a FTO before going to the written exams (before that one could study the subjects by themselves). Very few experimented private pilots were interested in spending a significant amount of time and money to learn how many extinguishers must be installed in a B737 so they can instruct only on SEP afterwards.
It was obvious there would be a volunteer instructor shortage, so the DGAC negociated with the JAA. A private pilot can become a FI without the CPL theory BUT:

- the CPL theory is replaced by a multiple choice question exam covering the PPL syllabus; the pass score is 90% (these questions don't come from the PPL question bank: they are more difficult!)
- the applicant must in addition take a 4-day refresher ground course covering air law, principles of flight, etc.
- then he can take the pre-entry fligt test, the whole instructor training and the final exam in the same conditions as CPL theory holders;
- he will be limited to conducting the training for the PPL (no bridge towards CPL FI, IRI, ME FI etc.) even if he passes the CPL or ATPL written exams afterwards;
- this rating is non-JAA and is national.

As for the financial side, there is another french specificity: the DGAC gives money to the FFA (Fédération Française Aéronautique) in order to fund instructor trainings. A flying club can recommend an applicant who meets the requirements; if the CRA (regional delegation of the FFA) approves the application then the flying club pays his training 3600 € (instead of 12000 €). The remaining is paid by the FFA. The applicant commits himself to do at least 300 hours as a volunteer instructor in the flying club within 3 years (which has no legal basis, nothing prevents him of walking away). The training has to be taken at the SEFA which is the State-owned FTO.

(Since the 1st of January the SEFA no longer exists as such and the funding mechanism has changed but no one seems to know exactly how it will affect the instructor training scheme)

There are many concerns about how the limited FI will be dealt with by the EASA. Those who hold the CPL or ATPL theory are likely to be "upgraded" to JAA/EASA FI. However nothing is sure about the other ones who are not interested in a professional career. All the more since the LAFI project was rejected (as well as the BLAPL, see here: EASA FCL Update 15 Oct 10 (http://www.aopa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=258:easa-fcl-update-15-oct-10&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=247))
Because of these doubts, today I wouldn't recommend a French private pilot to take the FI training without the CPL theory. Or at least until the transition rules are definitely set.

Hope my explanation was clear :)

[LH2]

Hope my explanation was clear :)

That was possibly the best summary I've seen posted on any English or French forum. Thank you for sharing.

P.S.: What do you mean "SEFA no longer exists as such"? That's easily the best FTO in Europe, it'd be such a shame to see it go :uhoh:


To the OP: apologies for the wee bit of thread drift :\

[Le Bigleux]

P.S.: What do you mean "SEFA no longer exists as such"? That's easily the best FTO in Europe, it'd be such a shame to see it go http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif

Don't worry, the FTO activity will continue! Actually the SEFA was merged with the ENAC (Ecole Nationale de l'Aviation Civile) which notably trains future French controllers. For those who can read French, here is some information: Le SEFA est-il soluble dans l?ENAC ? - AéroBuzz par Gil ROY (http://www.aerobuzz.fr/spip.php?article687)

I can't assure that the SEFA is the best FTO in Europe but it certainly has very high standard trainings. As a PPL at that time I really had to kick my own butt in order to manage to follow the FI training! (And BTW in three years I only have done about 165 hours as an instructor but I enjoyed each of them)
Comparatively the CPL then IR trainings were pieces of cake, a few years later.