Paid flight instruction without CPL knowledge.

[BEagle]

The CAA has confirmed that a part-FCL FI(A) including those who have not passed the CPL exams may now be paid to instruct for the NPPL(SSEA) as well as for the LAPL(A).

There is no change to the requirement for the FI(A) course itself.

This means that a PPL holder can work towards the experience pre-requisites necessary for the FI(A) course without needing to worry about the CPL exams. Once qualified as an FI(A), the PPL holder can then study for the CPL at his/her own pace whilst gaining flying experience.

[Cows getting bigger]

Good news. Now, when will they let us start delivering the LAPL? We've had our application for LAPL approval with the CAA since October. :ugh:

[xrayalpha]

So, am I right?

I can get a PPL and fly so many hours, then get an FI (R) and start earning?

(I already am a microlight instructor/examiner)

Or do I still need some CPL theory stuff?

[S-Works]

You can do an FI without CPL theory but you are restricted to teaching for the NPPL and the LAPL. But yes you can be paid.

You will also need to find a supervising FI while you are still restricted.

[All-The-Nines]

Does anyone know somewhere in the London/South-East area that allows someone to do a Flight Instructor's Rating part-time? It's something I'd love to do on my days off and perhaps one day lead me in to a full time commercial piloting career, but I cannot afford to drop my current job (already in aviation) to go and do the FI course.

[dobbin1]

I think that Dorothy Pooley at Shoreham occasionally has FI students who only attend at weekends, but it would take a long time to build up the theoretical training time (125 hours IIRC) and the 30 hours of flight training that way.

[xrayalpha]

Thanks Bose-X.

And do you know if a student who gets a LAPL can then convert to an EASA SEP easily?

(and the hours with a non-CPL instructor count?)

And I presume an NPPL/LAPL only school still needs to be an FTO?

Just trying to do a SWOT analysis on these changes.

[Prop swinger]

And do you know if a student who gets a LAPL can then convert to an EASA SEP easily?Yes, there's an easy conversion route.
(and the hours with a non-CPL instructor count?)Of course, you don't have to hold a CPL to instruct under EASA.
And I presume an NPPL/LAPL only school still needs to be an FTO?LAPL training must be at an ATO (once the transition period is over.)

[BillieBob]

LAPL training must be at an ATO (once the transition period is over.)No transition period - LAPL training may be provided only by an ATO. Any RFs wishing to offer the LAPL must first become ATOs

[Mickey Kaye]

"LAPL training may be provided only by an ATO. Any RFs wishing to offer the LAPL must first become ATOs"

Which to me is a bit strange. As Registered Facilities can teach for the PPL but can't teach for the sub ICAO LAPL licence.

Shame really as in these difficult times flying schools could do with all the help they can get.

[JUST-local]

So what happens to the ex BCPL FI's now PPL FI's who have never done CPL or ATPL theory surely they will also be restricted to NPPL and LAPL?

[S-Works]

its my understanding that they are being given grandfather rights.

[BEagle]

So what happens to the ex BCPL FI's now PPL FI's who have never done CPL or ATPL theory surely they will also be restricted to NPPL and LAPL?

The CAA has already answered this. BCPL holders who had completed the full BCPL course were deemed to hold ‘full’ CPLs for part-FCL conversion purposes. Restricted BCPL holders were deemed to hold PPL privileges only; however, for part-FCL conversion purposes, these privileges include the right to receive remuneration for conducting flight instruction.

As R/BCPL/FI holders were existing FIs, there is no requirement for them to take the CPL exams in order to maintain their rights to be paid for continued work as FIs at PPL level. They have not lost any privileges, for example, a PPL/FI with aerobatic instructional privileges may teach an ATPL holder aerobatics and be paid for doing so.

To instruct a CPL course, the FI must hold a CPL, but to instruct for a rating, the FI must hold that rating him/herself in addition to any additional instructional requirements.

[BillieBob]

a PPL/FI with aerobatic instructional privileges may teach an ATPL holder aerobatics and be paid for doing so.While this may be the opinion of the UK CAA, it is clearly not compliant with FCL.205.A, nor is it the opinion of the EASA Rulemaking Directorate and so may not be the case outside the UK, although this probably will not concern those that it affects.

[BEagle]

Wrong.

Under FCL.505(a)(1), The ATPL(A) includes the privileges of the PPL(A), hence the PPL/FI is actually conducting aerobatic training for that element of the trainee's licence.

[BillieBob]

Play with words all you like, old chap, but the fact remains that, whilst an ATPL (or a CPL) may include the relevant privileges , it is not a PPL. FCL.205A says 'attached to these licences', not 'attached to licences with these privileges'.

The expressed view of the EASA Rulemaking Directorate, in writing, is that the holder of a PPL may instruct/examine for remuneration only for the LAPL, PPL or ratings and certificates attached to these licences.

[S-Works]

Following that line of thought, are you suggesting therefore the only instructors who can teach the holder of an ATPL is another ATPL holder? Going to make it a bit difficult for the ATPL holders to get any training.....

[BEagle]

Indeed bose-x....!!

So, Mr Glass Half Empty, if the ATPL holder lets his licence lapse for the period of an aerobatic course and reverts to a PPL, that's OK. But if he doesn't, it isn't?

Surely even the obstinate "Befehl ist Befehl - so sei es!" rulemakers can't be that daft?

At least the UK CAA are taking the sensible, pragmatic view.