PPL +FI

[pipertommy]

Hi, what is the limitations for a ppl with FI rating these days? Can they get paid? No longer limited to teaching lapl? Thanks.

[rudestuff]

You can get paid. You need CPL knowledge passes to teach PPL and above. Not required to teach LAPL.

[pipertommy]

So no CPL passes no ppl teaching. You'd only be able to teach lapl.

[AllanA]

I know a PPL/IR who holds FI(A), MEP CRI, IRI and instructs part time NPPL, LAPL, IMC/IR(R), Night Ratings and MEP along with holding a GR(A) and RT Examiner chits but doesn’t have CPL exam passes. Just doesn’t instruct for EASA PPL. So the assertion that it is LAPL only isn’t strictly accurate.

[Whopity]

So the assertion that it is LAPL only isn’t strictly accurate.According to the Rgulation it is:FCL.915.FI FI — Prerequisites
(2) hold at least a PPL(A) and have:
(i) met the requirements for CPL theoretical knowledge, except for an FI(A) providing training for the LAPL(A) only It is entered in the holder's licence.
Don't confuse the priviledges of seperate qualifications.
Teaching IR is a privilege of the IRI qualification for which 800 hours under IFR is a prerequisite if not a full FI; the ME is a privileged of the CRI(ME) qualification. Night rating traing would be restricted to holders of a LAPL only!
Additionally, FIs qualified under the old National, before CPL knowledge was a requirement, have grandfather rights so may not have CPL level knowledge.

[AllanA]

You make a good point Whopity, people shouldn't confuse privileges with qualifications.

The assertion that an FI(A) without CPL TK can ONLY teach a LAPL is incorrect. You can by, different routes, gain the privileges to teach for the issue of other qualifications even if you don't have grandfather rights. The entries on another licence I have seen about are as follows:

FCL 905.FI applies as in (a)(b)(e)(g)(IR(R))(h)/For LAPL only

It must be a niche teaching LAPL, IMC/IR(R), MEP and night qualifications along with RT Exams and ground exams. Actually, there is nothing stopping a PPL instructor holding a flight examiner certificate either as far as I know. I don't know how many IFR hours this chap has but I know he holds a full EASA IR and if over 200 IFR hours then any reason for not being able to teach, for example IR for candidates training via the CB-IR route?

[MrAverage]

I thought an MEP CRI (as opposed to someone who'd done the full Multi Instructor course) could not do initial multi training?

[Duchess_Driver]

A CRI can only teach someone who already has a licence, but there is no difference between what an FI with ME CRI and a ME CRI can teach as far as the ME aircraft is concerned. A ME CRI could not teach an ab-initio PPL on a twin but an FI with ME CRI could......

An IRI must also have ME CRI privileges to teach the ME IR.

[Whopity]

MEP CRI (as opposed to someone who'd done the full Multi Instructor course)The ME CRI is the full Multi Instructor Course!

[Mickey Kaye]

OhAlso remember that if you meet the requirements of the CRI rating after completion of the FI course you can apply for a CRI rating at the same time. And you don't need CPL TK for that either.

And a PPL without CPL TK can also teach for the NPPL and all its associated ratings including microlight.

[MrAverage]

Thanks again Whopity, I now realise I was thinking of a PPL without FI(A) doing the ME CRI (who would be so limited) which was not the subject of the thread.

[anchorhold]

So these days if instructing on a PPL, to be paid do you need a class one or class two medical? Also if your renewals, medicals, traveling cost are in excess of what you are being paid, are you deemed as being paid, as you have made no profit, that assuming you are self employed.

[Whopity]

to be paid do you need a class one or class two medical?A PPL requiures a Class 2 and a CPL a Class one, so if you instruct using PPL privileges you only need a Class 2 medical. The privilege to be paid is part of the EASa privileges of the PPL.

You are probably thinking back to the days of the CAA ratings pre 1999 when a Class 2 was required to instruct, but a PPL only needed a Class 3.

[Kemble Pitts]

A PPL with either CRI or FIC can be paid for instructing.

[flying jocks]

You can get paid. You need CPL knowledge passes to teach PPL and above. Not required to teach LAPL.

hi rudestuff.

The last bit 'ppl and above' is this written down anywhere in EASA rules? If so please quote. I held an ATPL, now a PPL with FI. Can i teach CPL?

cheers

FJ

[rudestuff]

Check out post #5 - Whopity posted the reference. Having previously held a CPL or above should meet the requirements. The interesting question is how do you ''lose'" an ATPL?

[Whopity]

I held an ATPL, now a PPL with FI. Can i teach CPL? You cannot teach for a licence that you do not hold so a PPL holder cannot teach CPL. You could probably get your ATPL reissued or perhaps a CPL as you have already held one.

[flying jocks]

The interesting question is how do you ''lose'" an ATPL?

Not having a current class 1 medical and JAR licence expired. Cannot convert to EASA professional licence.

[redpassion]

Hello, I'm an Italian Pilot, few days ago i have passed an AoC as FI with my PPL WITHOUT CPL/TK.
I'm really surprised (and also worried about) to understand that in your opinion (and thanks for that) an FI Limited to Lapl, DO NOT has the same privileges of an CRI SEP, (where the CPL TK is not requested).
I have another work in the aviation contest, but i do not found money under my bed, and FI rating was really expensive (but i have to say i am now another type of pilot).
What i would to say, is that my FI Instructor told me, "you can act with all the prvileges of an FI except for teaching for PPL training. I choose full FI instead of ridiculous 3 hr CRI course to be really prepared to instruct something (and now it is).
Is really incredible that a training of 3 hours (10% of 30hrs needed for full FI) give you all the privileges mentioned above and the full FI Training Don't. Really hard for me to understand.
Under this point of view a FI training limited to LAPL is totaly useless!
I have to check again with my instrucor and maybe with the authority, there is any recently change in this point?
More than a question, a hopeness...is a HPA Training (dedicated to whom doesnt hold a ATPL/CPL TK) proove an CPL TK?
Thanks a lot. I'm really sad now to think, that in the same day (or may be the same flight), was possible to attend both FI and CRI AoC, paying less than in two separate session. really really nervous.

[Duchess_Driver]

Under this point of view a FI training limited to LAPL is totaly useless!

Not so... the LAPL should eventually become the default qualification for people wanting to learn to fly.... I am surprised that (in the U.K. in my experience anyway) there are few schools offering it.

No, HPA does not qualify as TK for CPL.

The full FI course equips the applicant with the skills to assess the ab-initio exercises - the CRI course not so. The only thing a CRI can do that an FI can’t is in the initial stages where the FI is restricted they must operate under supervision of an ATO/FI. A CRI has no such initial restriction.

[markkal]

FI and CRI are two distinct ratings are they both have very specific applications.

CRI is by no means a short cut to the FI as it may appear. There are some instances in some specialised fields, where the CRI may only be the only viable option.

It you take mountain flying or aerobatics, the aim is to rate pilots with extensive experience gained over decades in these fields to be able to teach and convey their experience, without going through the long and laborious theoretical or ATPL or CPL , for which in their fields they have no real need.
But they need a level of understanding, techniques and standardisation in how to teach, They don't need to learn their job but rather how to teach it..

[S-Works]

FI and CRI are two distinct ratings are they both have very specific applications.

CRI is by no means a short cut to the FI as it may appear. There are some instances in some specialised fields, where the CRI may only be the only viable option.

It you take mountain flying or aerobatics, the aim is to rate pilots with extensive experience gained over decades in these fields to be able to teach and convey their experience, without going through the long and laborious theoretical or ATPL or CPL , for which in their fields they have no real need.
But they need a level of understanding, techniques and standardisation in how to teach, They don't need to learn their job but rather how to teach it..

one of the best descriptions I have read in a long time. I shall steal that for my next course!

[redpassion]

I agree with you, about the useful qualification of CRI for whom has nothing to do with ATPL/CPL teaching. What I’m surprised to understand is the following: I have PPL and No TK CPL. :
If I will undergo FI training (teaching and learning, technical theoretical training and 30 hrs flight training) I can teach only to Lapl holders and lapl student.
I have aerobatics rating, night rating, diff train on tail wheel, turbo, EFIS, slpc, VPP-Rg, parachuting rating, nothing of that can be teached with that training.

than I can choose a very short training composed of the same T&L and close to same techn training (of course less extensive) and just 3hrs of flying training.
That’s enable you with PPL and without CPL TK to teach all the above and to perform Ceckride, annual proficiency for sep renewal, introduction flight, and any Dual flight that a PPL holder needs to do with an instructor.
i hold also SEP/sea rating, and with CRI training (I say one more time 3 hrs ! ) you can also qualify a ppl/holder to Sep/sea thtrough an 8 hrs training path.
It sounds really nosense in my opinion.

[Genghis the Engineer]

3 hours is a nominal minimum.

The reality is "training required to pass the CRI skill test". Either you're good enough to pass that, or you aren't.

G

[rarelyathome]

Sadly, the bar’s not that high. Certainly not anything like that for the FI.

[TheOddOne]

Having previously done the CRI course, some time prior to doing the full FI course, I feel able to comment on the relative worth of the 2 qualifications.
In my view, the CRI test, as Genghis points out, is a bar quite high enough for the work that will be done subsequently. It's NOT about ab initio instruction, it's about passing on enhanced skills or assessing current PPL skills and helping people whose skill levels might have drifted off. It's also about helping people gain knowledge of a particular aircraft type - the LAA coaching scheme requires people to have the CRI qualification. The CRI ground school fully covers all the teaching and learning skills also required of a FI. I found the test a challenge and felt pleased with myself that I had attained the necessary standard.
The FI is all about helping people take their first aviation steps and therefore covers in great detail all the initial exercises so that the student can pass the PPL (or LAPL) skills test. The FI initial flight test is not actually a huge step up from the CRI flight test, or mine wasn't, anyway - maybe my CRI test was a bit tougher than other people have enjoyed.
I'd be more interested in comments from people who have actually done both courses and tests, rather than those expressing impressions from a distance.

TOO

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ask me in 2 months, and hopefully I'll have a full set and can answer more meaningfully.

For now - the conversations I've had and two CRI tests I have passed with two different examiners suggest to me that the standards of FI and CRI are similar, but the scope is far less for CRI.

If I instruct a PPL for tailwheel, a new type, a biennial, microlight differences, a lapsed licence, an NPPL(M)-->NPPL(SSEA) - all of which I've done: I'm expected to work to the same standards as an FI. But the FI has been trained to teach basic flying technique, and I have not - only to critique, use and improve it. Scope not standards in other words.

G

[Whopity]

As someone who taught one of the first CRI courses, it has posed something of a quandry, what on earth are we trying to acheive in 3 hours? In the main, the CRI course is based upon ensuring that the candidate is shown how to demonstrate and assess the items found in a Class Rating Skill Test. When it comes to the Assessment of Competence, one expects a FI to conduct any of the basic exercises and especially know what they are doing and why. The ability to teach should be evident but it will only develop with practice. The CRI however starts from an unknown datum and is required to demonstrate more than teach and to analyse errors and correct them. If the same standard were applied there would be very few CRIs because you cannot train an instructor in 3 hours. I have seen the full spectrum of CRIs from those who are very competent after 3 hours to those who still can't fly their own aircraft after 10 hours. As there is no filter or worthwhile pre course experience requirement, the end product is largely determined by pre course experience.

[rarelyathome]

I'd be more interested in comments from people who have actually done both courses and tests, rather than those expressing impressions from a distance.

TOO
Not sure who that is aimed at but if it was my post directly above, I am far from being at a distance.

[150bugsmasher]

Can FIs with a PPL instruct the initial stages of the integrated courses? I imagine not due to the legal wording in PART-FCL, but seems nuts as my understanding is that it's the same content

[Genghis the Engineer]

As there is no filter or worthwhile pre course experience requirement, the end product is largely determined by pre course experience.

Not by the test standards?

G

[Kemble Pitts]

I did the CRI course and then did the FI course a couple of years later, so now I am a PPL with FI and CRI and without CPL TK.

The FI course was much more rigorous (30 hrs v 3 hrs, so that's pretty obvious). However, at the end of the course each had a test of about an hour. One 1 hour flying test is much like another; either way you are asked to teach a lesson to the 'student' (examiner) to an acceptable standard.

Whatever the content or difficulty or otherwise of the flying test, I sure as hell learned an awful lot more on the FI course.

My understanding (Whopity?) is that an FI without CPL TK can teach for the LAPL (clearly), cannot teach any element of the PPL (also clearly, even though the LAPL and PPL exercises are 95% identical), but can then teach the holder of a PPL to do other things (tailwheel and other differences, SEP rating, blah) including aerobatics if they are an aerobatics instructor.

The confusion comes from what CAA FCL (for UK licence holders) writes on the licence. Against the FI rating it says '... for LAPL(A) only'. But this is not the case as I can do the post PPL stuff on the FI rating!

To lake sure that I have as many bases as possible covered I actually insisted that CAA FCL leave the CRI qualification on my licence along with the FI rating so that there could be no question that I could do the post-PPL stuff - using the CRI if someone baulked at the FI qualification wording.

[BillieBob]

The precise wording of the relevant part of FCL.915.FI is, "An applicant for an FI certificate shall....hold at least a PPL(A) and have met the requirements for CPL theoretical knowledge, except for an FI(A) providing training for the LAPL(A) only...." (my emphasis) This would seem not to permit an FI(A) without CPL theoretical knowledge to teach for any qualification other than the LAPL(A), although the precise interpretation is left to the competent authorities. However the UK CAA chooses to interpret the requirement, there are plenty of authorities around Europe that interpret it precisely as it is written and do not permit such instructors to teach for anything other than the licence unless a CRI certificate is also held. It would be wise, therefore, to exercise caution if providing instruction to the holder of a licence issued by competent authorities other than the UK CAA.

[BEagle]

Correct! An FI without CPL knowledge may only provide flight instruction for the LAPL(A), any ratings which can be included on the LAPL (e.g. night or aerobatic raitngs) and addition of privileges for other classes which may be flown using a LAPL (e.g. adding TMG privileges). Of course the FI must also be qualified to provide such instruction.

However, if the LAPL-only FI also holds a CRI certificate, he/she may provide any necessary class rating instruction for qualified pilots - such as variant differences training and refresher flight training.

[Kemble Pitts]

Chaps, thanks and I note your interpretation.

However, I don't believe that it is universally read that way. The examiner who tested me for the FI was surprised when I said I'd also keep the CRI when I sent my licence to CAA as he said that the FI (without CPL TK) included all of the CRI privileges. I understand that this interpretation was also held by the head coach of the LAA coaching scheme.

I read the 'LAPL-only' bit to relate to ab-initio training only.

Logically (I know, I know...) it would seem daft that a CRI without CPL TK could do things that an FI without CPL TK could not. I think the confusion comes from poor wording on the licence leading to unintended interpretations.

I suggest the real problem is that it is being interpreted differently by different people. The rules should be clear, unambiguous and logical (again, I know, I know...).

[BEagle]

I suggest that, yet again, the incorrect interpretation comes from an Examiner who is ignorant of Part-FCL!

The privileges of a PPL/FI without CPL knowledge most assuredly do NOT include all CRI privileges. Quite how anyone believes to the contrary I cannot understand.

[redpassion]

Sorry to disagree. I had a really deep faceto face with the school that already consulted the authority that explained me the story in this term: Lapl means Light Aircraft Pilot Licence. To be limited to train for lapl. Means that you can train someone to want to be me holder of a LICENCE up to LAPL.
Train someone for a class rating (ex novo or for prof check), a Rating, a diff, training and all the other stuff relevant Are not related to the licence that either FI and student holds. You can train an ATPL holder with an expired SEP, just with your PPL and FI rating. Class rating, rating, diff training, are like little boxes inside a big one (the Licence)
IF the intention of the Regulator was to limit the PPL FI with No CPL TK as seems by mostly of you the exact wording as to be” providing training for the LAPL only and for LaPL holder. “ that is not .
then before to be sure that a qualified flight examiner is ignorant about something we have to consider if our understanding is the same of the authority. is someone of you speaking in force of an official answer of your authority.?

[Level Attitude]

In the UK, Privileges are listed in Section XII of the Licence. Is this true EASA wide?

For an FI with CPL knowledge: "FCL.905 FI applies as in /(a)/(b)"

Where (a) = a PPL, SPL, BPL and LAPL in the appropriate aircraft category;
and (b) = class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, except for single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes; class and group extensions for balloons and class extensions for sailplanes;

Checking the Licence would seem the easiest way to confirm what an FI is entitled to teach.
I would assume that for an FI without CPL knowledge the first entry would be "/(a) LAPL only"; with the BIG question ?? being whether there is second "/(b)" entry.

Of course this doesn't help if someone is planning an FI course and wants to know beforehand which Privileges their Competent Authority will actually enter on their Licence following successful completion :*


Can FIs with a PPL instruct the initial stages of the integrated courses?
Unless I have misunderstood, if they can teach for the PPL, then Yes:
FCL.910.FI FI — Restricted privileges
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;

[BEagle]

Can FIs with a PPL instruct the initial stages of the integrated courses?

No. If providing training for a licence, the FI must hold at least the licence for which flight instruction is to be given.

See FCL.915(b)(1).

[Level Attitude]

I agree that to be able to teach for something, the Instructor must also hold the same (or equivalent) qualification.

The wording of
FCL.910.FI FI — Restricted privileges
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
threw me a little.

Is the reason for this paragraph that, even though they would have over 200 instructional hours, some CPL Instructors might still be Restricted?

[TheOddOne]

I knew someone with over 5,000 instructional hours who was still restricted. He specialised in teaching PPLs aerobatics, so never got to send ab initio students solo...

TOO

[Kemble Pitts]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/556x286/capture_7dda864d4c6ef6e8f68db3acce1fedddabd7c52f.png
FYI, there is a subsequent '(b)'

It would be better if the 'For LAPL(A) only' was next to the '(a)' but I (and others [inc. examiners]) believe that this is sloppy drafting rather than intentional.

[BillieBob]

On the contrary, the entry as written complies exactly with the regulation - instruction may be given only if the rating is to be applied to an LAPL(A).

[Whopity]

Is the reason for this paragraph that, even though they would have over 200 instructional hours, some CPL Instructors might still be Restricted? No. This came in with JAR-FCL where a FI (Restricted) could give instruction on an Integrated Course at PPL level. ( there is no indication anywhere of which parts of a CPL course might be considered to be at PPL level) No requirement for 200 hours, because they are not teaching CPL. In the 20 years this has been in place, I have never encountered a FI(R) teaching in an Integrated school.

[Level Attitude]

[QUOTE=Kemble Pitts;10459073]https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/556x286/capture_7dda864d4c6ef6e8f68db3acce1fedddabd7c52f.png
If Privilege (b) is included in the above - and it only applies to Ratings that can be attached to an LAPL - exactly which Class/Type Ratings can it be used with?