Instructor Requirements?

[Truckky]

Hi all,

Not first post, was registered under another name which I have forgotten. Its been a while. Anyway,

I was wondering If anyone could help me. I havent flown for nearly five years on my JAR PPL. I am currently renewing it and have LPC next week.
During the break, the ATPL exams which i passed in 2005 have expired as I never passed my CPL. :(:ugh:Stupid eh?

So I guess ive given up on the idea of flying for cash. I now drive a truck. But I would like to Instruct PPL's as i enjoy teaching. Im not bothered about getting paid. Ive heard I can be a "Restricted" instructor by doing the instructors rating without a cpl. My questions are: Is there a minimum hours requirement? ( I have 110 ) and My ATPLs lapsed in 2008, Do I need to do them all again?

I have a school that will let me do trial lessons but I could do without all the exams again. It would be nice if I could Just do the Instructors rating.

Many thanks for any help!!!

T.

[mcgoo]

Im not bothered about getting paid.

Brilliant! :ugh:

[Duchess_Driver]

Section H1.2 part C says if you haven't got a CPL you need a minimum of 200, of which 150 should be P1.

There are additional requirements all detailed in section H.

That's how it stands at the moment....

HTH

DD

[Whopity]

And the good news is that under the new EASA rules, passed by the EP this week, you will be able to be remunerated for PPL instruction whilst holding only a PPL. You have the CPL knowledge so fill your boots.

[GgW]

And the good news is.......to be remunerated for PPL instruction whilst holding only a PPL

This is a sad day/week for instructors that are CPL holders.:ugh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

And the good news is that under the new EASA rules, passed by the EP this week, you will be able to be remunerated for PPL instruction whilst holding only a PPL. You have the CPL knowledge so fill your boots.

First I've heard of that, do you have a link or reference to that?

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Brilliant! :ugh:

Gliding clubs manage very happily with instructors who are unpaid and have no professional licences, and have done for years.

Perhaps there is room for a return to a true flying club, like many gliding clubs, where experienced PPLs give their time and skill for freee. There are certainly 1000+hr PPLs out there who have a lot to offer, certainly far more potentially than a 300hr CPL who has never flown a taildragger, done very little strip flying, little recreatonal touring, and so-on.

But it's not going to put mainstream instructors out of business, because the amateur instructor will still have to earn a living somewhere so can't reasonably be available 40+ hours a week in the way that a full timer can be, and somebody learning in a sensible time needs them to be.

G

[GgW]

Gliding clubs (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6676734#) manage very happily with instructors who are unpaid and have no professional licences (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6676734#)
What is the cost comparison between operating a glider compare to a C172?
There are certainly 1000+hr PPLs True, but they only need 150 PIC / 200 TT, to became a flying club hero!
Taildragger's are differences training only , not much to it really. In fact the 5 groundloops that I have seen myself was done by PPL holders. Strip sense, well its EX 17 and 2 hours circuits on a grass runway should do it.
The 300 hour CPL guy is better than the 200 hour PPL, he has been trained better, knows more and will have a more professional attitude than the almighty good old boy from the flying club with his PPL and FI ticket.
I have nothing against experience ( 1000+ hrs) ppl holders that can be paid for flight instructing, I think its a disgrace that a PPL holder less than a 1000 hours can be paid for instructing.

[Whopity]

do you have a link or reference to that?
Yes, its all here (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/tran/dv/tran20110525_pilotlicences_/tran20110525_pilotlicences_en.pdf):
Specific requirements for the PPL aeroplanes - PPL(A)
FCL.205.A PPL(A) - Privileges
(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or copilot
on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.
(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or
examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:
(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.

The 300 hour CPL guy is better than the 200 hour PPLHaving trained 300 hour PPLs and 200 hour CPLs straight out of Oxford, I have to disagree!

[GgW]

Having trained 300 hour PPLs and 200 hour CPLs
Well its Oxford:E I have also trained both of them.
I said 300 hr CPL and 200 hr PPL, quoting the 300 from Genghis post.

[Genghis the Engineer]

What is the cost comparison between operating a glider compare to a C172?

Depends upon how you measure it - add in hangerage, and the fact that there are far more days per year that you can fly a C172 usefully than a glider, and it's not clearcut. Anyhow, this was about the instructor.

True, but they only need 150 PIC / 200 TT, to became a flying club hero!

Having been a member of a few "real" flying clubs, I'd dispute that. The club membership will know generally who the good experienced pilots are, and who aren't. If the good experienced pilot happens to be an instructor, excellent!

Taildragger's are [FONT=&quot]differences training only , not much to it really. In fact the 5 groundloops that I have seen myself was done by PPL holders.

Not much? I wonder why all those books about it are in the various aviation bookshops then? More seriously, a lot of taildraggers are also "interesting" older aeroplanes that require a degree of finesse in operating them which benefits from having spent a fair bit of time about them.


Strip sense, well its EX 17 and 2 hours circuits on a grass runway should do it.

Sorry, but no that's just not true. Strip knowledge is about PPR, reading waterlogged runways, making your own fly/no-fly decisions where there's no formal source of information, working without radio, fuelling from jerry cans.... - a lot of stuff that goes far beyond circuits and precautionary landings.

Of course most instructors know and recognise that this significant body of knowledge is needed, which is why many instructors wisely recognise that their experience is all about a narrow range of aircraft types and certain types of airfield - so they don't get involved in this sort of instruction.

But that does create a gap, which the 1000+ hr club PPL might fill very successfully. This of-course is one of the reasons for the CRI qualification or the LAA Coaching Scheme.

The 300 hour CPL guy is better than the 200 hour PPL, he has been trained better, knows more and will have a more professional attitude than the almighty good old boy from the flying club with his PPL and FI ticket.

That is *probably* true; but the almighty good old boy may have spent many hundreds more hours building, maintaining, calming down locals upset about having their house overflown. And will probably know that strip extremely well. So it's not always all that clearcut. It's certainly not just about stick and rudder skills.


I have nothing against experience ( 1000+ hrs) ppl holders that can be paid for flight instructing, I think its a disgrace that a PPL holder less than a 1000 hours can be paid for instructing.


I have a lot against any system that thinks that hours are everything to be honest. Let's assess ability.

If we have two 500hr pilots:

(1) PPL, owning and maintaining his own aeroplane, flying for 9 years, very careful and consciencious, spends most of his spare time around his airstrip.

(2) fATPL, never owned, very well trained, been flying 3 years did integrated then FI, never really flown outside of the flying school environment - very precise and punchy, excellent at doing things by the book.

Both of those pilots have a great deal to teach a newbie - but in very different ways. What would be really good would be to give them opportunities to learn from each other!

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

The irony is the CPL course is perhaps more relevant to an FI than an airline pilot. Well done bureaucrats! :ok:

The CPL course was certainly largely irrelevant to my interests in test flying, but it was the course I needed to pass, so I did.

The UK microlight world makes for an interesting comparison. There is no CPL(M), but the instructional system is broadly similar to the JAR instructional system.

So, we have NPPL(M)+FI(R)/FI teaching and being paid under a CAA exemption. The system seems to cope fine - and if the latest GASCo publication is to be believed, the microlight world is now delivering a lower accident rate per flying hour than certified GA.

Which pretty much removes most arguments for requiring a CPL to teach. Of course, it's fairly off-pissing if you shelled out thousands on your CPL course and somebody else now doesn't require that to be paid to teach - but the system should be constantly looking for the lowest regulatory burden commensurate with safe delivery.

G

[GgW]

Having been a member of a few "real" flying clubs, I'd dispute that. The club membership will know generally who the good experienced pilots are

I partially agree with you on that one,but your argument is al based on the assumption and discretion of the flying club owner. What about the none ''real flying clubs''? It does not take a lot for a smooth talker to gain a few students, and work his way in or shall I say up. And economics overides common sense.

I have a lot against any system that thinks that hours are everything to be honest.

You gain experience with hours, full stop!!

Ex 17 , well maybe I am over teaching the lesson.
Strip knowledge is about PPR, reading waterlogged runways, making your own fly/no-fly decisions where there's no formal source of information, working without radio, fuelling from jerry cans....

PPR - gets taugh in navigation,
readin waterlogged runways - 75% of grass runways gets waterlogged.
fly/no fly decision- you're not serious.
working without radio - its in the airlaw manual, and common sense
jerry cans - most people fly into airfields with avgas/mogas fill it up and make sure they have enough to get back out of the then visiting strip again.Good airmanship.
That is *probably* true; but the almighty good old boy may have spent many hundreds more hours building, maintaining, calming down locals upset about having their house overflown. And will probably know that strip extremely well. So it's not always all that clearcut. It's certainly not just about stick and rudder skills.
Again the more hours you have the more experience you have, All airfields will have some form of noise abatement procedure. Calming down the locals, its more a issue for the airport owners. Ask every instructor you know if he/she knows the noise abatement procedures of their airfield and hopefully they will tell you its one of the first things you tell your students.

This whole thing about low houred ppl holders that can get paid for instructing has opened up a new method for the future airline pilot to build hours. As I have said before I have nothing against very experienced PPL holders getting paid for instructing to top up their pensions. I myself is learning a lot from the CRI's. The 1000 hours is just a number pulled from nowhere, it could be 1500 for argument sake. I think its a insult to CPL/FI or CRI holders that for example a PPL/FI or CRI holder with approx 230-999 hours total time can get paid.

[GgW]

The irony is the CPL course is perhaps more relevant to an FI than an airline pilot.

I know, that's why I think that if you want to get paid as a inexperienced instructor you must have a CPL, I dont care about the class 1 medical.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Getting really picky here.

A school, or an FBO, is a business with an owner.

A club is an organisation of nominal equals who jointly manage it. It will normally have a committee, who in turn will have a strong say in the management of the airfield, flying standards, and so-on.

I've been a member of true clubs, and "clubs" which are actually schools. They are quite different beasts with strengths and weaknesses. On the whole, I prefer a true club when flying as a private pilot, although the opportunities to make a living there are few and far between.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know, that's why I think that if you want to get paid as a inexperienced instructor you must have a CPL, I dont care about the class 1 medical.

Surely they're either good enough to teach, or not. Payment is irrelevant to that safety based decision.

fly/no fly decision- you're not serious.

I'm now an instructor and a CPL, previously as an experienced (yes ~1000hr) PPL I was regularly checking out new pilots who'd joined a couple of aircraft syndicates I belong(ed) to - entirely legally I hasten to add, they were qualified to fly the aeroplane and I didn't log it or request payment. Particularly from a syndicate on a non-radio strip, where you had to turn up, get the aeroplane out from under covers, pre-flight, walk the runway to decide whether the condition was okay, squint at the windsock to estimate wing,decide which runway to use, phone the nearby military helicopter base to ask them to ****off and stop using our runway for practice attack runs - many PPLs found this all quite alien and were not at-all comfortable, at-first, making these decisions on their own without having an instructor to go and talk to, somebody in the tower to pass them information...

A few PPLs simply decided they couldn't cope and changed their minds about joining the syndicate before heading back to a big club with an instructor always around and somebody on the radio.

So yes, I'm serious.

jerry cans - most people fly into airfields with avgas/mogas fill it up and make sure they have enough to get back out of the then visiting strip again.Good airmanship.

So good airmanship is not to keep your personal / group aircraft at a strip with no fuel supply then? Or never to operate an aircraft which needs MOGAS, given that most airfields only have AVGAS pumps. Or operate microlights near a GA airfield that bans microlights - so you can't fill up there?

Or alternatively, you could include how to store and fuel from jerry cans in strip flying training? I went for this version.

G

[GgW]

Genghis

You are missing the point and only thinking of your own little agenda and how you operate. The bigger picture here is that low hour PPL holders can instruct for money!! A PPL holder can atempt to make a living out of flying.
So what if you have you are operating of a farm strip, the checks that you do is pretty common sense. Walking the runway, looking at windsock. Only x amount of movement otherwise you have to apply for planning permission, and ..........
All of that is things that you will learn when you move to a strip.
Awsome, I have learned to fly on a strip and is now teaching at a big ish airport.

Its a disgrace to aviation and a insult to CPL's that a low hour PPL's can get paid for flying.

A few PPLs simply decided they couldn't cope and changed their minds about joining the syndicate before heading back to a big club with an instructor always around and somebody on the radio.
I don't get your point on this one ( regarding payment to ppl instructors) , but nobody likes to loose students to another flyng school/club.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think I'm losing you a bit there.

I hold a CPL, and don't feel particularly insulted by the large number of microlight schools where people with a PPL plus an instructors course are teaching safely and successfully.

I will express some irritation at how much money I spent doing a CPL course which was basically all about precision DR, to enable me to be paid to do test flying - which I had a PhD in already and is all about stuff that most CPL instructors care little and know less.

That I can use this CPL to be paid to instruct is nice, and the reason I went and did a CRI course. I quite enjoy instructing and learned a lot on my instructors course; doubtless the moderate sharpening of my "by the book" flying skills developed on my CPL did no harm to my ability to pass that course quickly and affordably. It's an interesting question whether with, say, 300hrs and a PPL I could have passed that course? - there's a fair chance I couldn't, and that (plus the continued requirement to pass all the CPL writtens to take the FI(R)/FI course) may protect you from this dreadful tragedy of low hour PPL holders being paid to teach.

But ultimately, I still think that either an instructor is properly trained and assessed to teach and can therefore be allowed to do so, or they haven't and shouldn't. How many hours they've got, or whether they have a CPL should be irrelevant to PPL teaching.

Being paid is just how it is, the rules for the last 20-30 years have been that you needed a CPL to be paid, and you and I both take advantage of that. If EASA is changing that back to how it used to be (although again not, so far as I can tell the requirement to pass all the CPL writtens to do an FI course) that will change the commercial makeup of the flying training community and it may be a bad thing in certain lights, especially if you shelled out on a CPL course to become an instructor and now realise you didn't need to and are £8k down. On the other hand, you learned a lot, improved your flying and presumably teaching CPL/IMC/IR will only ever be permitted to holders of professional licences.

But insulting anybody? No, I can't really see that.

Now, an FI with no strip experience trying to teach flying a homebuilt from a small grass strip flying club on the other hand, on the assumption it's all "common sense", that might be insulting to some far more experienced PPLs and downright dangerous. :E

G

[oldspool]

Hours are one way of expressing experience but are by no means the only way, and can be misleading.

I operated my Pitts out of a 550m farm strip. Each sortie was about 20 minutes long. For 20 minutes logged I got a morning of fixing something, an hour of washing the aeroplane, a take-off, a landing (or two ;)), some more washing (bugs post-flight), some hangar flying with the other residents and putting the aeroplane to bed.

An entire day of aviation (poor Mrs H) which 20 minutes logged doesn't really capture. It would take almost 6 years of such 'flying' to log the same amount of hours as someone flogging a C150 up and down the Florida coast for 3 months.

Everyone is different. PPL/FI might be appropriate for one, and CPL/FI for another.

[GgW]

Now, an FI with no strip experience trying to teach flying a homebuilt from a small grass strip flying club on the other hand, on the assumption it's all "common sense", that might be insulting to some far more experienced PPLs and downright dangerous.

It is common sense, the home builder will have a company that sign off the build and will send out a testpilot to do the few first flights.Why ..because you have bought their kit. After that its just another aircraft. I have flown homebuilds myself, quite a few of them. I fully appreciate what your saying. To get back to the original subject.

Low hour PPL/FI holders should not be paid for what their doing.

Colin its true what you say, take for example military pilots, Many of them will only fly 200 hours a year, so it will take 10 years to get 2000. By the way how many of those ground hours was spending drinking tea and polishing the spinner:E.

[oldspool]

By the way how many of those ground hours was spending drinking tea and polishing the spinner

Well, you have me there. Lots of tea, lots of polishing. An important part of the day, the 'taking it all in' bit. Cheers,

[Genghis the Engineer]

Compare that to here in the US where as a minimum you need to be a CPL with a CFI/I) before you can instruct - paid or otherwise.

Correct me if I'm wrong however, but I believe that the US does not require the equivalent of 6 months of groundschool and 9 or 14 written exams to get a CPL? It is much more competence than boxes-ticked based?

For me I think that's where it should be - is somebody good enough, and assessed as such? If they are, let them do the job and get paid. If they aren't, what bits of paper they hold aside from that purely associated with that job, should be irrelevant. The instructors rating is the one that matters.

G

[mad_jock]

O why o why isn't there a requirement to have an applitude for teaching in the EU system.

Its horrible to see folk like worms in vinegar getting into aircraft with students. Totally out of there comfort zone and not in a position to teach the joy of flying.

Its quite sad really, I am with Genghis if someone was good enough and more importantly really wants to teach they shouldn't have to jump through a heap of hoops to be allowed to do it.

[LH2]

Hmm... is every participant in this discussion aware that, in France, the vast majority of PPL instructors are themselves PPL holders who do not get paid for their instruction?

This includes life-long "benevoles" (i.e., volunteer instructors) as well as retired CPLs / ATPLs who still enjoy flying and teaching and prefer to do so on a PPL. [ Question: is this to do with the ease and cost of keeping a more senior-friendly class 2 medical? ]

[Genghis the Engineer]

It is common sense, the home builder will have a company that sign off the build and will send out a testpilot to do the few first flights.Why ..because you have bought their kit. After that its just another aircraft. I have flown homebuilds myself, quite a few of them. I fully appreciate what your saying. To get back to the original subject.


Just going off track again for a moment - I'm curious what country you're in? Here in Britain homebuilts are overseen by LAA or BMAA inspectors, very usually modified during the build bringing in a "one-off" element, and then particularly for LAA aeroplanes the manual is pretty much always useless and in particular has little or no performance data. Then of course you get into the PtF airworthiness regime, which is somewhat different to the CofA aeroplanes most instructors are likely to be familiar with.

G

[Duchess_Driver]

You are quite correct that it is the FIC and the FIE that decide whether the person is good enough to instruct... The FIC in his preparation of the candidate and organisation of the skills test and the FIE in his assessment of the skills and knowledge demonstrated on the day.

The hoops that you have to jump through to instruct are there for a reason and rightly so.

I'm sorry, but I am in the 'no' camp on is one.... You want to instruct, that's fine... demonstrate the ability to pass the FI test and carry on. To me that does not automatically give the right to be paid for the privilege....regardless of whether you have 200, 2,000 or 10,000hours. You want to get paid, thats fine - get a COMMERCIAL pilots licence and carry on.

I appreciate I am a dinosaur, my kids tell me all the time!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well to be fair, that's been the rules for years and leaves everybody knowing exactly where they stand.

G

[overun]

"Worms in vinegar". l must remember that one ! spot on. l had a chief pilot like that once, on approaching within 20yds of the aircraft he went into attack is the best form of defence mode.
Some passion on show with this thread and it`s refreshing. The new regs came as a surprise to me as well but my feeling is that ppl or cpl requirement for ppl instruction is not an issue since it takes little more than seconds airborne to tell if someone is suited to the job and should be accepted as an instructor.
By suited l mean actually happy in the air and can communicate.:)

[Whopity]

You are quite correct that it is the FIC and the FIE that decide whether the person is good enough to instruct...Which has worked well by carefully monitoring those who hold FIC authorisations but, under the new EASA dynasty, any FI with 500 hours instruction who passes a test with an FIE will be able to conduct FI training at an ATO. No selection, no monitoring no individual authorisation. The very foundations are crumbling!

[Duchess_Driver]

any FI with 500 hours instruction who passes a test with an FIE will be able to conduct

Which is why the FIEs need to apply those standards that they do already and maybe (consciously or subconsciously) raise them slightly to compensate for the lack of the authorization board. Will there still be a requirement to attend the 2 day post authorization board, pre-test preparation/training days? I certainly hope so.

DD

[Whopity]

Will there still be a requirement to attend the 2 day post authorization board, pre-test preparation/training days?No, that was a UK requirement and never a JAA requirement; the UK can't impose more stringent requirements than the basic regulation.Which is why the FIEs need to apply those standards that they do alreadyBut this carefully selected group is also about to be diluted by the EASA regulation. To become an FIE:(1) hold the relevant instructor certificate,
(2) 2 000 hours of flight time as a pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs; and
(3) 100 hours of flight time instructing applicants for an instructor certificate.
FCL.1015 Examiner standardisation
(a) undertake a standardisation course provided by the competent authority or by an ATO

FCL.1020 Examiners assessment of competence
Applicants for an examiner certificate shall demonstrate their competence to an inspector
from the competent authority or a senior examiner specifically authorised to do so

[VFE]

Agree that an enthusiastic and experienced PPL'r with an FI rating is tens times better than a CPL'r with 300 hours simply doing it for the hours. Besides which, there's no money in PPL instructing anymore anyway so what does it matter?!

But be prepared to lose what remains of the old self improver route for career pilots.... now that seems a shame as not everyone can afford Oxford (and hence straight to shiney jet).

VFE.

[Duchess_Driver]

Agree that an enthusiastic and experienced PPL'r with an FI rating is tens times better than a CPL'r with 300 hours

Nope.... not always. I have recently done a couple of FI's who have a significant number of hours over and above the minimum and this just proves that you cannot make such a generalization. They were no better at general pilotage and sometimes they have 'peculiar' ideas which are more difficult to straighten out. A newly minted CPL is just as, if not more likely to be up to scratch in terms of GH precision flying and the knowledge for briefings isn't as deeply buried in their memory banks. Their ideas tend to me more mainstream as well.

Experienced PPL holders instructing shouldn't be discouraged and integrated CPL (fATPL) holders shouldn't be excluded either. Take every case as it comes.

My point is about the privilege of payment for work done.

DD