F/I's with PPLS
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the need to raise the bar, not lower it. That's the problem with the CASA proposal. While there aer plenty of very professional and experienced PPL holders out there, instructing should be a commercial operation, that is instructors should be paid for their service. The CASA proposal reiterates that PPL holders will not be renumerated.
The idea of allowing PPL holders to be instructors can only lead to the eventual elimination of instructing as a career, as new CPL qualified instructors will not be able to justify starting as an instructor. It will downgrade the quality of the whole industry. It's bad enough that there are instructors out there with 200 hrs who dont give a f*** about their students.
CASA needs to raise the standards of the instructor rating, maybe also the experience level, although i tend to think that 300 hours of worthwile experience doing the right thing is better than 700 hours of experience doing the wrong thing. And I know quite a few pilots more experienced in terms of hours than I who are s***house when it comes to safe flying. Its the same as age discrimination, why pick on someone because of their lack of years, it should be based on the ability to do the task.
OK i'll shut up now.
The idea of allowing PPL holders to be instructors can only lead to the eventual elimination of instructing as a career, as new CPL qualified instructors will not be able to justify starting as an instructor. It will downgrade the quality of the whole industry. It's bad enough that there are instructors out there with 200 hrs who dont give a f*** about their students.
CASA needs to raise the standards of the instructor rating, maybe also the experience level, although i tend to think that 300 hours of worthwile experience doing the right thing is better than 700 hours of experience doing the wrong thing. And I know quite a few pilots more experienced in terms of hours than I who are s***house when it comes to safe flying. Its the same as age discrimination, why pick on someone because of their lack of years, it should be based on the ability to do the task.
OK i'll shut up now.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies Icarus for the hurried reply on the way out the door to work this morning
En Garde! 
OK, ICARUS, I believe this is what you were referring to.....
Umm, your post I believe? 
Try this....
My bolding.
It is easy to see where one skimming quickly through a post could easily mis-interpret those words, I know, I've done it both on this thread, and on others. It's all in the way you punctuate!
Oh sorry, was that in one of YOUR posts?
The....
Thingie....
As far as I am aware, CASA has rather strict determinations as to what is considered HIRE AND REWARD. A flying training organisation does just that.... IT ACCEPTS MONEY TO TEACH PEOPLE TO FLY.... It doesn't matter if the pilot gets paid or not, if the person who hires the a/c out recieves money for it, then, well it isn't that hard to see that SOMEONE IS MAKING MONEY HERE.... (ie - commercial ops). Now with a bit of a twist on the old grey matter, one can see that it wouldn't be too long before someone else in another part of GA is able to (however obscurely) interpret that if one part of the COMMERCIAL GA INDUSTRY can get away with it, then it must be unlawful for CASA to descriminate against them in their business ops, and they will challenge the ruling..... etc etc.....
Clear as mud, I thought so.... At least CASA is moving with the times and trying to undermine the wages of low paid workers....
No problem, most C+T guys (yes and even some CP's), have many thousands of hours MORE THAN your average run of the mill PPL. This has nil relevance to what I was trying to say, however badly.
Oh boy. When was the last time you saw people (ie - paying pax), getting moved from one place to another in the air by glider? Nice red herring. Nil bities here though.
And lastly....
Fabtastic, another happy pilot in his/her day to day job, good one. There are also more than a few people who have flown with many ATO's as well. The issue and point of that prior thread may have been assy dec. hts, but as far as I remember, you got up someone whose point you had missed completely, and personally attacked him for your own misunderstanding of what he was trying to portray.
Yes we are all fallible, myself included.
Beer?
OK, ICARUS, I believe this is what you were referring to.....
.......The proposal also says that there will be a no remuneration prohibition on PPL Instructors. ......
Try this....
proposal also says that there will be a "no remuneration" prohibition on PPL Instructors
It is easy to see where one skimming quickly through a post could easily mis-interpret those words, I know, I've done it both on this thread, and on others. It's all in the way you punctuate!
and unscrupulous operators will run flying schools using PPL holders.
The....
sets a dangerous legal precendent
As far as I am aware, CASA has rather strict determinations as to what is considered HIRE AND REWARD. A flying training organisation does just that.... IT ACCEPTS MONEY TO TEACH PEOPLE TO FLY.... It doesn't matter if the pilot gets paid or not, if the person who hires the a/c out recieves money for it, then, well it isn't that hard to see that SOMEONE IS MAKING MONEY HERE.... (ie - commercial ops). Now with a bit of a twist on the old grey matter, one can see that it wouldn't be too long before someone else in another part of GA is able to (however obscurely) interpret that if one part of the COMMERCIAL GA INDUSTRY can get away with it, then it must be unlawful for CASA to descriminate against them in their business ops, and they will challenge the ruling..... etc etc.....
Clear as mud, I thought so.... At least CASA is moving with the times and trying to undermine the wages of low paid workers....
Line Check & Training pilots do not always have Instructional skills but have the job by virtue of the much lauded seniority system. Do you have a problem with them Instructing junior pilots?
At present glider pilots are taught by other pilots usually for free, driving instruction is available from family members, friends or professional instructors
Nil bities here though. And lastly....
I am pretty happy with my understanding of Asymmetric issues in light twins
Yes we are all fallible, myself included.
Beer?
Okay 429 CJ, my shout.
There are quite a few people out there who own small fleets of aircraft and rent them out. No AOC is required for this. If person A rents out the aircraft to teach person B how to fly, for no reward (other than hours then I can's see CASA being interested.
The other point is we are looking at this from our (and CASA's) present mind set, things will change radidly if they get their way.
I should really be protecting the Instructor profession but I can see how this way work in their favour. Certainly the present system is unsustainable.
Yes I agree with the sentiments about poor instructors etc. I have trained plenty who were only there to build hours. Those that cared enough to learn their trade shine brightly.
The gliding instructor rouge fish is to illustrate the point that there are already areas in aviation where this operates. Would love to hear from overses pilots on this.
As to punctuation I take your point, although I think the "a" in front of "no remuneration policy" makes it clear-ish?
There are quite a few people out there who own small fleets of aircraft and rent them out. No AOC is required for this. If person A rents out the aircraft to teach person B how to fly, for no reward (other than hours
then I can's see CASA being interested.The other point is we are looking at this from our (and CASA's) present mind set, things will change radidly if they get their way.
I should really be protecting the Instructor profession but I can see how this way work in their favour. Certainly the present system is unsustainable.
Yes I agree with the sentiments about poor instructors etc. I have trained plenty who were only there to build hours. Those that cared enough to learn their trade shine brightly.
The gliding instructor rouge fish is to illustrate the point that there are already areas in aviation where this operates. Would love to hear from overses pilots on this.
As to punctuation I take your point, although I think the "a" in front of "no remuneration policy" makes it clear-ish?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR (1988) Reg 2 - 7(A) An aircraft that carries persons on a flight, otherwise than in accordance with a fixed schedule between terminals, is employed in a private operation if:
(a) yaddah yaddah yaddah.......
all the way down to......
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and.......
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d).
.....yaddah yaddah yaddah.......
....shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
(a) yaddah yaddah yaddah.......
all the way down to......
(d) the persons on the flight, including the operating crew, share equally in the costs of the flight; and.......
(e) no payment is required for a person on the flight other than a payment under paragraph (d).
.....yaddah yaddah yaddah.......
....shall be taken to be employed in private operations.
What am I missing? hic
Don't know anything about flying in oz, but if you're talking about the concept of PPL holders instructing I know a bit about it as I did it in the UK.
Here, prior to 1988 it was possible to have an instructor rating issued on a PPL and be paid for instructing provided that both the instructor and student were members of the same flying club. Prior to obtaining the instructor rating you needed 200 hours total and 150 PIC plus an IMC rating ( the UK mini-IR which allows flight in IMC outside of class A airspace ).
Rather than prevent people making a career in flight instruction it actually helped to encourage it, as if that was all you wanted to do there was no need to go through the pain and expense of obtaining a CPL - and after all a good instructor on a light aircraft requires sound handling skills and teaching ability, not a knowledge of gas turbine engines, polar stereographic charts and arcane aspects of air law ( such as the size and colour of break in markings in case you want to respray your own airliner ), as required by the UK CAA.
The rule here was that if you held the required instructor ratings you could teach any PPL rating, but to train commercial pilots or instructors you had to hold a CPL or higher licence.
I almost made a career of it, flying just over 3500 hours instructing on cessna 152s mainly, before taking the commercial flight test. Despite changes in legislation there are still many full time paid club instructors in the UK with thousands and in some cases tens of thousands of hours instructing experience who have been granted restricted commercial licences for instruction only based on their original PPL Instructor qualifications. To suggest that a newly qualified CPL holder with 200 hours and an instructor endorsement can do a better job than them just by virtue of holding a CPL would be extremely naive.
Here, prior to 1988 it was possible to have an instructor rating issued on a PPL and be paid for instructing provided that both the instructor and student were members of the same flying club. Prior to obtaining the instructor rating you needed 200 hours total and 150 PIC plus an IMC rating ( the UK mini-IR which allows flight in IMC outside of class A airspace ).
Rather than prevent people making a career in flight instruction it actually helped to encourage it, as if that was all you wanted to do there was no need to go through the pain and expense of obtaining a CPL - and after all a good instructor on a light aircraft requires sound handling skills and teaching ability, not a knowledge of gas turbine engines, polar stereographic charts and arcane aspects of air law ( such as the size and colour of break in markings in case you want to respray your own airliner ), as required by the UK CAA.
The rule here was that if you held the required instructor ratings you could teach any PPL rating, but to train commercial pilots or instructors you had to hold a CPL or higher licence.
I almost made a career of it, flying just over 3500 hours instructing on cessna 152s mainly, before taking the commercial flight test. Despite changes in legislation there are still many full time paid club instructors in the UK with thousands and in some cases tens of thousands of hours instructing experience who have been granted restricted commercial licences for instruction only based on their original PPL Instructor qualifications. To suggest that a newly qualified CPL holder with 200 hours and an instructor endorsement can do a better job than them just by virtue of holding a CPL would be extremely naive.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Digressing slightly, but perhaps relevant.............
Who are we training today?
How much training is for recreational purposes and how much for potential employment purposes?
(Just to allow for the possibly disputable view that 'skill-sharing' may be acceptable in a recreational 'club' environment)
Anyone know?
Snooze
Who are we training today?
How much training is for recreational purposes and how much for potential employment purposes?
(Just to allow for the possibly disputable view that 'skill-sharing' may be acceptable in a recreational 'club' environment)
Anyone know?
Snooze
Join Date: May 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excrab
I wasnt (but cant speak for others) saying that a CPL with 200 hours is going to do any better instructing than a PPL with 900. The only point I was trying to make is that if you do want to instruct, do the theory and then the CPL flight test. In my mind it is a commercial job and should stay that way. It was in no way a comment on the level of profiencey of PPL's and one could argue the fact that if a PPL has 900ish hours then they must REALLY love aviaiton to have got that much time in their book by way of their own pocket. But again I must say I believe instructing should remain the job of Commercial pilots. If you already have 900 hours (or whatever to be considered an experienced PPL) then the great 'leap' into a commercial licence is not that hard to take.
Twin
Twin
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My lovely C 152 is a very clever aircraft, but I have never seen it fly different for my PPL or CPL students. Perhaps there is some hidden agenda in making 'recreational' instructing sort of 1/2 way between what we do now and the AUF. Perhaps in the end there will be no need for the AUF, or us. One mob is easier to administer than two. Personally I feel that Instructors need much more 'teaching' ability than we have now. Old dogs might have been driving aeroplanes longer but are they necessarily any better teachers. I encourage everyone to copy their posts on pprune through to CASA. The more feed back CASA gets the better.
Agree with a lot of what's been said - but maybe we're jumping at shadows here. CASA are unlikely to allow to much 'spread' of flight instruction because it will simply be uncontrollable, and where then the FOI's job?
Agree that FI experience standards should rise.
Agree that real flying schools should employ,and pay, real commercial instructors. This will only happen when CASA stop handing out AOC's to anyonewith a plausible story and a few quid.! I think that anyone wanting to progress above PPL would then attend these really top flight schools by choice.
But why can't we have non AOC instruction available, paricularly in the country, where a higher proportion of people are learning to fly for private operations, ie business and pleasure. Currently, they are forced through the procedurally correct, but somewhat irrelevant current PPL. These people need a more life-saving skills oriented PPL, not how to beg for a clearance into CTR!
This sort of training is well within the abilities of a very experienced, and so inclined PPL. As well, there are quite a few older CPL's and FI's living in regional Australia who would do this work - if it wasn't for the AOC. This would also provide an essential service to country pilots looking for their AFR/BFR. These PPL's baulk at having to fly hundreds of miles to be treated like lepers by a city flight school. Endorsements and recurrant training should also be available via these non-AOC instructors.
Under the proposed regs, much of this should be possible, providing that it's not destroyed by the fine print.
Country Australia is poorly served insofar as flying instruction, and it's no surprise, because small country schools are struggling to survive. If we went to a non AOC structure for the PPL, and streamed the CPL aspirants to the city schools, I think things could be changed for the better.
cheers,
Agree that FI experience standards should rise.
Agree that real flying schools should employ,and pay, real commercial instructors. This will only happen when CASA stop handing out AOC's to anyonewith a plausible story and a few quid.! I think that anyone wanting to progress above PPL would then attend these really top flight schools by choice.
But why can't we have non AOC instruction available, paricularly in the country, where a higher proportion of people are learning to fly for private operations, ie business and pleasure. Currently, they are forced through the procedurally correct, but somewhat irrelevant current PPL. These people need a more life-saving skills oriented PPL, not how to beg for a clearance into CTR!
This sort of training is well within the abilities of a very experienced, and so inclined PPL. As well, there are quite a few older CPL's and FI's living in regional Australia who would do this work - if it wasn't for the AOC. This would also provide an essential service to country pilots looking for their AFR/BFR. These PPL's baulk at having to fly hundreds of miles to be treated like lepers by a city flight school. Endorsements and recurrant training should also be available via these non-AOC instructors.
Under the proposed regs, much of this should be possible, providing that it's not destroyed by the fine print.
Country Australia is poorly served insofar as flying instruction, and it's no surprise, because small country schools are struggling to survive. If we went to a non AOC structure for the PPL, and streamed the CPL aspirants to the city schools, I think things could be changed for the better.
cheers,
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if its still in the making but there was a proposal late last year (approx.) to help solve the diminishing number of A Cat (Grade 1) instructors over here. It worked along the lines of allowing an otherwise qualified A Cat instructor without a class 1 medical still go about instructing post PPL.
Im sure it would be more complicated than this but the outline for the idea looks like a good one to me.
I personally dont agree that all C Cat/Grade 3 instructors should carry a minimum number of hours (eg 500). As a young student I found it wasnt a problem having a low(ish) time instructor - Most can adequatley teach straight and level flying, medium turns etc without having thousands of hours - But to the idea of PPL's instructing others - I believe it would be a case of the blind leading the blind if I was to have done that as a fresh PPL.
Well thats my $0.02 worth anyway!
Im sure it would be more complicated than this but the outline for the idea looks like a good one to me.
I personally dont agree that all C Cat/Grade 3 instructors should carry a minimum number of hours (eg 500). As a young student I found it wasnt a problem having a low(ish) time instructor - Most can adequatley teach straight and level flying, medium turns etc without having thousands of hours - But to the idea of PPL's instructing others - I believe it would be a case of the blind leading the blind if I was to have done that as a fresh PPL.
Well thats my $0.02 worth anyway!
Moderator
I was trained by PPL instructors in the UK. Some were excellent, some were rubbish, just like those with CPLs. Many would have been CPLs if they hadn't been prevented from holding the CPL due to not being able to have a Class One usually because of eyesight (one CFI had glasses like the proverbial bottom of a coke bottle !)
The difference between the case here in Aus, and that in the UK, is that it really isn't that difficult or expensive to upgrade a PPL to a CPL here, but in the UK it really was a mammouth and unbelievably expensive exercise, including such delights as eight month waiting lists for commercial flight test, plus prior to the introduction of the BCPL in 1989 you had to have 700 hours to hold any kind of CPL over there.
The other difference is that in the UK most schools operate as clubs, mainly becuse it is easier to survive that way (where I was, the bar and pool table was the only part of the club that made much money and subsidised all the flying that didn't happen when it was raining) Here in Aus most flying training organisations are run by private companies; that way you don't get lose cannons on the committe wrecking people's livlihood!
So, IMHO here in Aus all instructors should hold a CPL, especially if the knowledge and hours requirements are the same. IF they are good enough to instruct, then they should be able to upgrade to CPL without too much effort. If not, you have to wonder what their motivations are.
But PPLs teaching...I shudder at what it would do to the livlihoods of career instructors, and the internal politics if you had PPLs working for nothing along CPLs who worked for next to nothing; there would always be an unhealthy rivalry.
This was discussed on the AOPA website before they closed it to non-members. Could well be all this nonsense is their idea, not CASA; why on earth can't they stop meddling? Let them do thier AUF thing, and leave us professionals to get on with our work.
Have a nice day.
The difference between the case here in Aus, and that in the UK, is that it really isn't that difficult or expensive to upgrade a PPL to a CPL here, but in the UK it really was a mammouth and unbelievably expensive exercise, including such delights as eight month waiting lists for commercial flight test, plus prior to the introduction of the BCPL in 1989 you had to have 700 hours to hold any kind of CPL over there.
The other difference is that in the UK most schools operate as clubs, mainly becuse it is easier to survive that way (where I was, the bar and pool table was the only part of the club that made much money and subsidised all the flying that didn't happen when it was raining) Here in Aus most flying training organisations are run by private companies; that way you don't get lose cannons on the committe wrecking people's livlihood!
So, IMHO here in Aus all instructors should hold a CPL, especially if the knowledge and hours requirements are the same. IF they are good enough to instruct, then they should be able to upgrade to CPL without too much effort. If not, you have to wonder what their motivations are.
But PPLs teaching...I shudder at what it would do to the livlihoods of career instructors, and the internal politics if you had PPLs working for nothing along CPLs who worked for next to nothing; there would always be an unhealthy rivalry.
This was discussed on the AOPA website before they closed it to non-members. Could well be all this nonsense is their idea, not CASA; why on earth can't they stop meddling? Let them do thier AUF thing, and leave us professionals to get on with our work.
Have a nice day.
