Instructing PPL theory subjects

[Gee5]

Hi,
I have come to PPRuNe for some guidance and advice..

I am currently a ppl(a) holder in the hour building phase towards CPL and my objective of getting an FI rating in order to teach ppl. That's all I want to do.

I am appropriately experienced (professionally) and have the requisite knowledge to teach some of the ppl theory subjects like principles of flight, aircraft tech, op procedures etc. and that is exactly what I'd like start doing.

My question is, what CAA/EASA accreditation/qualification if any, do I need to be able to teach ppl theory ground school lectures. I am not interested in payment for this, just a way to gain overall teaching experience and to impart useful knowledge.

Thanks

[MrAverage]

For the PPL writtens no qualification is required. In theory a non pilot could give ground school. In reality the majority of students get by with self study, with perhaps a little one to one with an instructor if they have a problem area. Those that struggle with self discipline go to one of the "all done in one week" specialist centres. Each flying club/school will have their own system for compliance.


If you really have no wish to go to the airlines please send me a PM.

[Gee5]

Thanks MrAverage, useful to know that. I'll pm you when I can navigate around the site! Having real trouble with the iPhone prune app also!!

[BEagle]

You might also wish to consider the AOPA Ground Instructor Certificate. As well as indicating that you have been assessed as having excellent ground instructional knowledge and skill, it also (or rather did under Standards Document 11 - currently being updated) can be used as a prerequisite for GR Examiner status - which can be a useful string to your bow when looking for employment.

But wait first until Standards Document 11 is re-released before deciding!

[keith williams]

Does a course for the award of the AOPA Ground Instructor Certificate, actually exist?

My reason for asking this question is that when researching this subject in 2006 or 2007 I read Standards Document 11 then contacted AOPA to arrange a place on the course. When I asked for details of the course and when the next course would start, the reply was ...Erm the course does not actually exist because nobody has ever wanted to do it.

When I said "So it is not actually possible for anyone to do this course or obtain this certificate?" The answer was "That is correct."

[BEagle]

Well here's one ATO which currently advertises the course:

Flying Training|Instructor|Examiner|Formation|CPL|Aerobatics (http://www.ontrackaviation.com/aopa-ground-inst.html)

[justmaybe]

Complete and utter overkill. Must be Corporate member of AOPA - why? Must be completed at ATO that provides FI course - why? This wasn't always the case. From the link "it would allow an FI who may have lost his licence to continue to teach PPL / LAPL / NPPL subjects on the ground" - S/he could do so without such certificate! I also note the course cannot be used as a credit towards any other EASA Instructor certificate, and then there is the small matter of cost - £1800!
Sometime ago I was 'registered' with AOPA to provide this course (Still got all the material that was never updated) but I do not recall too many people wanting to sign up for it.
Pretty sure AOPA could provide this Certificate without all the whistles and bells.

[Gee5]

All this advice is really good thanks. I think i'll put the £1800 towards a few more hours in my time building program. I too have not heard of this AOPA cert. I spoke with a few FI's at my club who teach ground subject theory who looked at me blankly!!

I am guessing this certificate is a 'nice to have' rather than 'need to have'??

[MrAverage]

AOPA consistently increase the "reduced" instructor subs pretty much every year, while instructor pay has been largely at the same derisory level for around ten years or more.

[Airgus]

I am not interested in payment for this Gee5

Nice that you want to contribute to the flying, however it's a job and you shall be paid for it (otherwise I see it as a lack of respect for those doing it for a living), if then you don't want/need the money, donate it to any foundation.

I am sorry if it is a bit out of topic but I see this trend a lot in many areas in aviation. Slowly the profession will be extinguished.

[BigEndBob]

In my time I have come across a few instructors who were probably scared of flying and would have much preferred to do ground school only, if it paid.
In the UK casual ground school seems to be free, try it in the States, you are charged and everyone seems ok with that.
Wife of one of our students used to test her husband on the ground subjects, he struggled. She became interested in learning to fly and pretty much got 100% in all subjects and a better flyer to boot. She would probably have been good conducting ground school.

[Gee5]

I would also say you need paid either in cash or in flight time. Anything. Just charge something on a par with the FI's that make a living out of it do otherwise as said it is a bit disrespectful and bloody annoying to those of us that struggled by as an FI.

Tango alpha and Argus,

Please do not refer to me as disrespectful. I find it rather offensive. I do indeed want to instruct and earn money from it when I eventually get my FI ticket, but don't expect to or have any illusion that I'll do so until fully qualified. I apologise if you misinterpreted my initial post.

[rarelyathome]

You'll need a thicker skin than that :)

[Airgus]

To do something without charging is what I find it as a lack of respect, but not you disrespectful (I don't know you and I even perceived your intention as a nice positive contribution).

Understand the point that, on the long run, you may be contributing to the extinction of a profession.
As you may not be paid now, next year the 15 to 25 Pounds per hour fee may not be needed.
You may end up getting a job as a FO or in an office as you need an income, your position will remain vacant as no person would like to invest in a profession that pay zero.

The next generation of pilots will be unable to learn theory because no one will become an FI nor teach for free...

[Gee5]

Wow it sounds like I am about to single handedly collapse the entire GA ppl industry by seeking a bit of non-paid teaching experience!!!

Thank you to those who have offered some really good guidance. I have found a suitable course to kick start my instructing career.

And thanks to "rarelyathome"...... I'll make sure I get 'ticker' skin for my next post. If you are interested I do offer basic spelling lessons but I charge for those 😂

[Reverserbucket]

Worth noting that at some clubs, the FI's are able to boost their meagre income during the winter by providing ground instruction through evening lectures covering the PPL syllabus. I used to make about a tenner an hour which was very welcome if I hadn't managed to get airborne all day. Great way to develop and enhance your teaching skills, get to know members you may not see regularly and build confidence in a 'mass briefing' environment, as well as good to keep you on top of your theoretical knowledge while adding a lot of value (providing it's of a good standard) to yours and the club's reputation. Always thought the charging for G/S in the US to be sensible from a revenue perspective but largely a waste of money as very few of the many CFI's (or CGI's for that matter) I met seemed competent either in knowledge or teaching ability. Not all but most.


Does the 'GR' Examiner qualification still exist then BEagle? I used to be one but thought it expired when I moved on from the club I was teaching at. Might be worth trying to recover it.

[condor17]

RB , yes the Gr ticket is still valid . It's allied to the ATO you work at , and is a 3 year ticket . No exams etc. just grey hair and time around the block , luckily the ATO paid for it .

rgds condor

[keith williams]

A quick search of Part FCL revealed the following.

Part – FCL SUBPART J — INSTRUCTORS

GM1 FCL.900 Instructor certificates

GENERAL

(a) Nine instructor categories are recognised:

(1) FI certificate: aeroplane (FI(A)), helicopter (FI(H)), airship (FI(As)), sailplane (FI(S)) and balloon (FI(B));
(2) TRI certificate: aeroplane (TRI(A)), helicopter (TRI(H)), powered-lift aircraft (TRI(PL));
(3) CRI certificate: aeroplane (CRI(A));
(4) IRI certificate: aeroplane (IRI(A)), helicopter (IRI(H)) and airship (IRI(As));
(5) SFI certificate: aeroplane (SFI(A)), helicopter (SFI(H)) and powered-lift aircraft (SFI(PL));
(6) MCCI certificate: aeroplanes (MCCI(A)), helicopters (MCCI(H)), powered-lift aircraft(MCCI(PL)) and airships (MCCI(As));
(7) STI certificate: aeroplane (STI(A)) and helicopter (STI(H));
(8) MI certificate: (MI);
(9) FTI certificate: (FTI).

It is of course possible that the AOPA certificates are listed in some other part of the EASA publications.

[GipsyMagpie]

RB , yes the Gr ticket is still valid . It's allied to the ATO you work at , and is a 3 year ticket . No exams etc. just grey hair and time around the block , luckily the ATO paid for it .

rgds condor

The bit of the regulation that allows the CAA to have ground examiners is Article 168 of the ANO 2016 (it was Article 77 of the last ANO). I suspect the change mucked up all the references in Standards Doc 11 which is why they've suspended it temporarily.

[Reverserbucket]

Thanks for the information condor17 and GipsyMagpie.

[keith williams]

GipsyMagpie

I think that you need to look a bit more closely at your references.

Article 168
Approval of training and testing 168.
The CAA may, for the purposes of articles 36 and 187, and Chapter 3—

(a) approve any course of training or instruction;
(b) authorise a person to conduct such examinations or tests as it may specify; and
(c) approve a person to provide any course of training or instruction.

Article 36
Licensing of maintenance engineers 36.—

(1) The CAA must grant an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence, subject to such conditions it deems appropriate, if it is satisfied that the applicant is— (a) a fit person to hold the licence; and (b) qualified by having the knowledge, experience, competence and skill in aeronautical engineering to act in the capacity to which the licence relates.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) the applicant must supply such evidence and undergo such examinations and tests as the CAA may require.

(3) An aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence authorises the holder— (a) to issue certificates of release to service under this Order for such overhauls, repairs, replacements, modifications, maintenance and inspections of such aircraft and such equipment as may be specified; (b) to issue certificates of fitness for flight issued under paragraph 5 of the A Conditions for such aircraft as may be specified; or (c) to extend the validity period of the national airworthiness review certificate.

(4) Subject to article 253, an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence remains in force for the period specified in the licence, which must not exceed five years.

(5) An aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence may be renewed by the CAA if it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit person and is qualified in accordance with paragraph (1).

(6) The CAA may issue a certificate rendering valid for the purposes of this Order any aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence granted under the law of any country other than the United Kingdom. Document Generated: 2016-09-14 Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. 15

(7) An aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence granted under this article is not valid unless it has been signed by the holder in ink or indelible pencil but if the licence is annexed to an aircraft maintenance licence issued under Part 66 it is sufficient if that Part 66 licence has such a signature.

(8) The holder of an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence granted under paragraph (1) or of an aircraft maintenance licence granted under Part 66 must not exercise the privileges of such a licence if the holder knows or suspects that their physical or mental condition renders them unfit to exercise such privileges.

Article 187
Approval of instrument flight procedures 187.—

(1) An instrument flight procedure within the United Kingdom must not be notified unless that procedure has been designed or approved by the CAA.
(2) The CAA must not notify or approve an instrument flight procedure unless it is satisfied that the procedure is safe for use by aircraft.
(3) Subject to paragraph (5), the CAA may approve an instrument flight procedure where an application for approval of the procedure has been made.
(4) An applicant for approval of an instrument flight procedure must supply such evidence and reports as the CAA may require.
(5) The CAA is not obliged to accept an application for the approval of an instrument flight procedure where that application is not supported by a report submitted by a person approved under paragraph (6).
(6) The CAA must grant an approval to submit reports supporting an application for approval of an instrument flight procedure if it is satisfied that the applicant is competent having regard to the Document Generated: 2016-09-14 Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format. 81 applicant’s organisation, staffing, equipment, knowledge, experience, competence, skill and other arrangements to design an instrument flight procedure that is safe for use by aircraft.
(7) The applicant for an approval under paragraph (6) must supply such evidence and undergo such examinations and tests and undertake such courses of training as the CAA may require.


Chapter 3 is too large to copy and paste in its entirity, but the following text is the first few lines.

CHAPTER 3
Medical certificates Requirement for a medical certificate for a United Kingdom licence.

None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with the provision of PPL Ground Instruction or examinations. So it cannot be used as justification for the issue of AOPA GI certificates. Also, because the Standards Documents have no legal standing and are issued for reference purposes only, the new Standards Document 11 can give no legal standing to the AOPA GI certificates.

As I said previously, it is possible that some part of the various regulations makes them legal, but I have not found it yet. If they really have no legal standing, then the morality of charging £1800 for a GI Certfificate Course is questionable and the certificates themselves are little better than “Mickey Mouse Degrees”. Indeed some might call them Gold Plating.