Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Farnham
Age: 58
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Thank you for your comments, and guidance.
My reason for mentioning the IR was to illustrate the point that there is a pool of people who have held higher levels of qualification, but in current circumstances simply want to return to giving ab-initio instruction. It was certainly not intended to imply that all instructors should be so qualified.
I completely agree with you, in that there are situations where no IR is allowed or taught, and IMC/IR rated instructors are not required. It is exactly for this reason that I am pondering microlights and microlight instruction.
Best wishes
Deneb
Thank you for your comments, and guidance.
My reason for mentioning the IR was to illustrate the point that there is a pool of people who have held higher levels of qualification, but in current circumstances simply want to return to giving ab-initio instruction. It was certainly not intended to imply that all instructors should be so qualified.
I completely agree with you, in that there are situations where no IR is allowed or taught, and IMC/IR rated instructors are not required. It is exactly for this reason that I am pondering microlights and microlight instruction.
Best wishes
Deneb
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I'd chip in my twopenn'orth.
A commercial license is not required in order to instruct. The only privelige conferred by the commercial license in the context of instruction is the ability to be paid. Are the exams and the expense necessary solely in order to run a bank account?
Whether or not a commercial license is required has nothing whatsoever to do with instruction. It is solely to do with whether or not the purpose of the flight is Aerial Work.
With minor exemptions if money is paid for the use of the aircraft or for the services of the instructor the purpose of the flight becomes Aerial Work and the instructor requires a commercial licence and the aircraft requires a Transport Cat C of A. If the flight is not Aerial Work you don't need a CPL or a Transport Cat C of A. If the instructor is not paid and any payment for the use of the aircraft falls within the exemptions of Article 130 it is not Aerial Work.
This whole sorry mess arose out of a need to prevent abuses that saw members of the public being taken on illegal joyrides or charters. Public Transport rightly requires the vehicle's maintenance regime and the licensing of its driver to be of a higher standard than that for Private Transport. It's the same with buses and ships as it is with aircraft.
However training is not Public Transport any more than driving instruction or seamanship training is and it would have been far better to use the existing law to bring the culprits to book rather than change to a more restrictive regime that simply had the effect of imposing Public Transport standards on all.
The pool of instructors who were given their BCPL's on the strength of their PPL/FI's is dwindling and we are seeing the results. The costs of obtaining and maintaining a FI rating are higher because the requirements have rightly been raised in order to raise the standard of instruction. However you can't recover those costs without a commercial license.
Having been forced to get the commercial license you're far better off using it for something other than instruction, with the result that instruction becomes a "fill in" job between commercial contracts and the standard of instruction received by students suffers.
If instruction were taken out of the Aerial Work category it would open the way for the employment by FTO's of instructors with PPL/FI ratings, who are every bit as qualified under the current rules to instruct, but who do not aspire to a commercial job and will not leave as soon as one comes along.
Mike
A commercial license is not required in order to instruct. The only privelige conferred by the commercial license in the context of instruction is the ability to be paid. Are the exams and the expense necessary solely in order to run a bank account?
Whether or not a commercial license is required has nothing whatsoever to do with instruction. It is solely to do with whether or not the purpose of the flight is Aerial Work.
With minor exemptions if money is paid for the use of the aircraft or for the services of the instructor the purpose of the flight becomes Aerial Work and the instructor requires a commercial licence and the aircraft requires a Transport Cat C of A. If the flight is not Aerial Work you don't need a CPL or a Transport Cat C of A. If the instructor is not paid and any payment for the use of the aircraft falls within the exemptions of Article 130 it is not Aerial Work.
This whole sorry mess arose out of a need to prevent abuses that saw members of the public being taken on illegal joyrides or charters. Public Transport rightly requires the vehicle's maintenance regime and the licensing of its driver to be of a higher standard than that for Private Transport. It's the same with buses and ships as it is with aircraft.
However training is not Public Transport any more than driving instruction or seamanship training is and it would have been far better to use the existing law to bring the culprits to book rather than change to a more restrictive regime that simply had the effect of imposing Public Transport standards on all.
The pool of instructors who were given their BCPL's on the strength of their PPL/FI's is dwindling and we are seeing the results. The costs of obtaining and maintaining a FI rating are higher because the requirements have rightly been raised in order to raise the standard of instruction. However you can't recover those costs without a commercial license.
Having been forced to get the commercial license you're far better off using it for something other than instruction, with the result that instruction becomes a "fill in" job between commercial contracts and the standard of instruction received by students suffers.
If instruction were taken out of the Aerial Work category it would open the way for the employment by FTO's of instructors with PPL/FI ratings, who are every bit as qualified under the current rules to instruct, but who do not aspire to a commercial job and will not leave as soon as one comes along.
Mike
G-KEST - No doubt you'll have heard the interim response which the NPPL P&SC recently gave your papers as presented by the PFA?
On the approval of non-PT CofA'd aeroplanes and revised requirements for training sites, we are waiting for the CAA's internal views, not forgetting EASA's policies, of course. Not just at NPPL level, but also for JAR-FCL PPL(A) training.
Re. the idea of non-CPL holding pilots with FI ratings, let's just say that it certainly wasn't dismissed out of hand. One of the organisations is waiting for a written reply from the CAA on a fundamental key issue; when they've got that they'll be able to formulate a consolidated view. The European way of doing things will feature strongly in any UK proposal - for example, if a Franciwegian is permitted to teach PPL flying for remuneration without holding a CPL, then why shouldn't a Brit?
Regarding medical standards, we need a response from CAA medical as to the lowest acceptable medical requirement for any future FI.
Thus it's not inconceivable that, in the future, a PPL-level flying club could have a mixture of enthusiastic part-time PPL holders happy to give some time up for the benefit of newcomers - but who don't have the time or money to commit to 14 Eurocratic CPL exams - as well as the traditional CPL-holding 'hours builders'. The advantage to the club would be that they'd have less chance of suddenly losing FIs when the FO jobs loom - and a very good chance of keeping a number of sound, reliable and ultimately experienced FIs happy to be part-timers.....or perhaps 'career' FIs?
Never say never is the name of the game!
Edited to add: No-one is prepared to accept any lower standards from future FIs, no matter what. In fact if anything there are calls for more rigorous selection and testing standards for new FI(R)s!
On the approval of non-PT CofA'd aeroplanes and revised requirements for training sites, we are waiting for the CAA's internal views, not forgetting EASA's policies, of course. Not just at NPPL level, but also for JAR-FCL PPL(A) training.
Re. the idea of non-CPL holding pilots with FI ratings, let's just say that it certainly wasn't dismissed out of hand. One of the organisations is waiting for a written reply from the CAA on a fundamental key issue; when they've got that they'll be able to formulate a consolidated view. The European way of doing things will feature strongly in any UK proposal - for example, if a Franciwegian is permitted to teach PPL flying for remuneration without holding a CPL, then why shouldn't a Brit?
Regarding medical standards, we need a response from CAA medical as to the lowest acceptable medical requirement for any future FI.
Thus it's not inconceivable that, in the future, a PPL-level flying club could have a mixture of enthusiastic part-time PPL holders happy to give some time up for the benefit of newcomers - but who don't have the time or money to commit to 14 Eurocratic CPL exams - as well as the traditional CPL-holding 'hours builders'. The advantage to the club would be that they'd have less chance of suddenly losing FIs when the FO jobs loom - and a very good chance of keeping a number of sound, reliable and ultimately experienced FIs happy to be part-timers.....or perhaps 'career' FIs?
Never say never is the name of the game!
Edited to add: No-one is prepared to accept any lower standards from future FIs, no matter what. In fact if anything there are calls for more rigorous selection and testing standards for new FI(R)s!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine that being trained by a ppl licence holder would scare a lot of new students, not something I would fancy. The CPL licence holder has proved him/herself able to fly at a competent level for public transport with a CAA examiner. I also agree that an Instrument Rating should be mandatory for every flying instructor. The student should feel confident in his/hers instructors ability. I never used to enjoy flying with a fair weather only flying instructor, until I got my own IR.
Sally - sorry, but that's nonsense.
An experienced PPL holder who has spent many years in a club environment and has passed the FI(R) course will be far better equipped to teach PPL flying to newcomers than some minimum-time yoof with his/her shiny new CPL, desperate to grab sufficient hours to enable him/her to fly a people-tube as soon as he/she possibly can.
It's the quality of the individual which matters - assuming that he/she's successfully graduated from the FI(R) course. Having passed 14 exams and obtained a CPL/IR is nihil ad rem when it comes to being an effective instructor. No - what matters is the right personality, experience and skill. All of which can be assured by proper selection and testing of the FI(R) applicant in the first place.
An experienced PPL holder who has spent many years in a club environment and has passed the FI(R) course will be far better equipped to teach PPL flying to newcomers than some minimum-time yoof with his/her shiny new CPL, desperate to grab sufficient hours to enable him/her to fly a people-tube as soon as he/she possibly can.
It's the quality of the individual which matters - assuming that he/she's successfully graduated from the FI(R) course. Having passed 14 exams and obtained a CPL/IR is nihil ad rem when it comes to being an effective instructor. No - what matters is the right personality, experience and skill. All of which can be assured by proper selection and testing of the FI(R) applicant in the first place.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Returning from a round the world trip where I have talked to instructors in Singpore, Oz, NZ and the USA one of the things that strikes me is the varying standards and requirements tolerated in other countries. But the point that I do not remember seeing on this thread is the one that the guy who does the ab initio to fATPL route integrated (what used to be a 509 course) is least qualified to go on to basic PPL instruction as he never actually holds a PPL and does not really know what PPL flying is all about. I still believe that we need well-qualified and well-experienced enthusiasts to be PPL instructors and that about 500 hours of varied flying is a good start. Then a "Teaching course" where the candidate learns HOW TO TEACH including the ground school. We need to have ground school made compulsory (as I have said before) as it benefits everybody.
As an aside, in the USA it is legal to instruct without a medical at all if you are instructing a PPL who holds a valid rating but is eg. out of currency.
Keep up the good work everyone...
As an aside, in the USA it is legal to instruct without a medical at all if you are instructing a PPL who holds a valid rating but is eg. out of currency.
Keep up the good work everyone...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standards
I agree with the full gist of what you have said bar this;
500hrs would be too excessive for too many and is not therefore realistic.
The high average for a PPL per annum is unlikely to be more than 25 hours. Take off say a hundred hours; PPL training, Advanced ratings, differences training etc and your left with 400 hours to achieve which would mean in the region of 16 years experience.
Perhaps 300 hours to include 200 hours PIC and with prescribed experiences such as Aerobatics, Tail wheel, Complex, IMC, Night and extensive X/Country to be included, or at least an appropiate selection from the list. An experience norm would then be in the region of 5 - 10 years as a Pilot.
I wholely agree that teacher training in addition to instructing is a must. I've found the Phsycology contibutions at recent seminars fascinating. Malcolm Hunt applied such knowledge brilliantly at the GAPAN Forum.
500hrs would be too excessive for too many and is not therefore realistic.
The high average for a PPL per annum is unlikely to be more than 25 hours. Take off say a hundred hours; PPL training, Advanced ratings, differences training etc and your left with 400 hours to achieve which would mean in the region of 16 years experience.
Perhaps 300 hours to include 200 hours PIC and with prescribed experiences such as Aerobatics, Tail wheel, Complex, IMC, Night and extensive X/Country to be included, or at least an appropiate selection from the list. An experience norm would then be in the region of 5 - 10 years as a Pilot.
I wholely agree that teacher training in addition to instructing is a must. I've found the Phsycology contibutions at recent seminars fascinating. Malcolm Hunt applied such knowledge brilliantly at the GAPAN Forum.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I suppose 500 is a bit high but the point I was trying to make is that the PPL instructor should have a fair bit of varied experience and if anything, holding a licence for a longer period is part of gaining that experience especially in this country. Not only does one need the weather understanding that comes from flying through several seasons but the maturity from dealing with a variety of problems. I am very suspicious of the type of instructor who has done everything from ab initio to instructing within 15 months and a lot of it in another country. UK experience is essential.
As an aside, I think that if a PPL is only doing 25 hours a year max he may not have enough consolidated experience for instructing. My own example is that I went from starting to learn to fly to becoming an instructor within 4 years, but at the time of the rating being issued I had 370 hours including landing at 70 different airfields in 14 different countries, flown 10 types including 3 twins (over 90 hours multi) and 4 tailwheel types, some aeros in a Stampe and was working on the aerobatics certificate. And I felt I was only just beginning!! Contrast with the guys today who have 200 hours virtually all on PA28s and have hardly ever landed anywhere away from base other than on their QCC - they have no experience to offer prospective PPLs!
As an aside, I think that if a PPL is only doing 25 hours a year max he may not have enough consolidated experience for instructing. My own example is that I went from starting to learn to fly to becoming an instructor within 4 years, but at the time of the rating being issued I had 370 hours including landing at 70 different airfields in 14 different countries, flown 10 types including 3 twins (over 90 hours multi) and 4 tailwheel types, some aeros in a Stampe and was working on the aerobatics certificate. And I felt I was only just beginning!! Contrast with the guys today who have 200 hours virtually all on PA28s and have hardly ever landed anywhere away from base other than on their QCC - they have no experience to offer prospective PPLs!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: stockport
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an FIC authorised Instructor - and my expeiences of FI(R) students who have passed the ATPL exams & flight tests are as follows:
Many have no idea whatsoever about basic physics - eg's: don't know the difference between thrust & power; assume that forces, componts & resultants are all synonyms etc, etc. However, they have all been given enough practice papers to pass the exams - possibly without any real understanding?
A considerable proportion of what is taught on approved ground-school courses is 'simplified' - eg's:
Coreolis force - only ever explained N/S. That's because the conservation of momentum arguement falls flat on it's face E/W - and for good reason - because it's wrong. Sad, because the real explanation isn't really that difficult;
Compass errors - have you ever noticed the compass card 'dipping' when flying N or S? - me neither, and that's because it doesn't - oh dear - another wrong 'explanation';
Lift - the usual diagrams miss out the most important part - the starting vortex! Can you believe that the vast majority of the worlds' professional pilots have no idea of the basic principle that keeps them airborne? Unfortunately they don't! - it's the effect of viscosity.
But it doesn't stop there - now we come to flying training. CPL students are taught to fly in a commercially expedient fashion, which is sometimes inappropriate to SPPL instruction eg. - it is not appropriate for a 10 hr first solo student to lower the flaps in a final turn, or to use the power - roll - pitch recovery when the a/c stalls from the inevitable pitch-up. Yet many CPL graduates assume that what they were taught on their course was 'gospel' - having not understood that the techniques they learned for the CPL were appropriate for a higher level of experience.
In conclusion I can see no reason why a good PPL should not be allowed to teach to PPL level without passing the CPL/ATPL exams and flight test, provided the FIC ground-school is carried out properly.
Many have no idea whatsoever about basic physics - eg's: don't know the difference between thrust & power; assume that forces, componts & resultants are all synonyms etc, etc. However, they have all been given enough practice papers to pass the exams - possibly without any real understanding?
A considerable proportion of what is taught on approved ground-school courses is 'simplified' - eg's:
Coreolis force - only ever explained N/S. That's because the conservation of momentum arguement falls flat on it's face E/W - and for good reason - because it's wrong. Sad, because the real explanation isn't really that difficult;
Compass errors - have you ever noticed the compass card 'dipping' when flying N or S? - me neither, and that's because it doesn't - oh dear - another wrong 'explanation';
Lift - the usual diagrams miss out the most important part - the starting vortex! Can you believe that the vast majority of the worlds' professional pilots have no idea of the basic principle that keeps them airborne? Unfortunately they don't! - it's the effect of viscosity.
But it doesn't stop there - now we come to flying training. CPL students are taught to fly in a commercially expedient fashion, which is sometimes inappropriate to SPPL instruction eg. - it is not appropriate for a 10 hr first solo student to lower the flaps in a final turn, or to use the power - roll - pitch recovery when the a/c stalls from the inevitable pitch-up. Yet many CPL graduates assume that what they were taught on their course was 'gospel' - having not understood that the techniques they learned for the CPL were appropriate for a higher level of experience.
In conclusion I can see no reason why a good PPL should not be allowed to teach to PPL level without passing the CPL/ATPL exams and flight test, provided the FIC ground-school is carried out properly.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been advocating the passing of a pre-entry written examination for FI candidates as well as an interview to assess suitability plus the flying pre-entry test, purely because this would assist in assessing aptitude and character, the hours in the logbook and ticks in the boxes not being a reliable indicator of suitability or aptitude for FIs.
To add to the last posting, how many FIs are aware of the insurance requirements for SEP aircraft and the intricacies of pilot warranties, usage and liabilities of instructors? How many know anything at all about the validity of a Cof A and what a check 'A' constitutes? Where to find the rules on Pilot maintenance? What "straight oil" is for and why it is important to know? How many know the legalities of instructional flying in aircraft with private C of A and what they should ask the owners?
Yet they still fly and take the risks...if commercial pilots do not know basic aspects of Air Law and still go flying (with expired ratings, medicals, without proper concern for insurance) how can we expect PPLs to understand their responsibilities?
I believe that we have to construct a different type of course for instructors and it has to be focussed on teaching ability not jumping through the hoops required for an ATPL. Anyone who is interested in these ideas should send me a PM and also let me know if they are interested in joining an International Instructor Association to take these ideas forward.
To add to the last posting, how many FIs are aware of the insurance requirements for SEP aircraft and the intricacies of pilot warranties, usage and liabilities of instructors? How many know anything at all about the validity of a Cof A and what a check 'A' constitutes? Where to find the rules on Pilot maintenance? What "straight oil" is for and why it is important to know? How many know the legalities of instructional flying in aircraft with private C of A and what they should ask the owners?
Yet they still fly and take the risks...if commercial pilots do not know basic aspects of Air Law and still go flying (with expired ratings, medicals, without proper concern for insurance) how can we expect PPLs to understand their responsibilities?
I believe that we have to construct a different type of course for instructors and it has to be focussed on teaching ability not jumping through the hoops required for an ATPL. Anyone who is interested in these ideas should send me a PM and also let me know if they are interested in joining an International Instructor Association to take these ideas forward.
