Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders

[G-KEST]

BEagle - Happy New Year - you may well be reading some papers I have written in the near future. It perhaps is time for a move away from JAR-FCL for those 90% of our students and potential students that have no interest in moving into commercial aviation. For far too long the system has forgotten that for most private flying and, in particular, sporting and recreational aviation is an end in itself. Just because there is an engine up front does not mean that the light aeroplane enthusiast must be financially disadvantaged in comparison with other aviation pursuits. We need more students - and especially younger ones. If the reactionary forces you predict do come out of the sand like ostriches so be it - they have not done so particularly in the thread despite it being dedicated to examiners and instructors. COME ON - HAVE YOUR SAY.......!!!

[BEagle]

Happy New Year to you as well, G-KEST.

The PPRuNe FI poll shows that 33% of FIs who responded are instructing only until an airline job comes along. The bitter truth is that if, all of a sudden, the route to becoming an FI became easier, then many of that 33% group would perceive a threat to their livelihood and would doubtless object in response to the mandatory RIA.

Personally I think that a lower-level commercial licence permitting remunerated instruction at NPPL level would be a start - much like the old Restricted BCPL. NO lowering of instructional standards would be acceptable, but perhaps an easing of the theoretical examinations and 'complex' aeroplane flying training might be acceptable? The difference now though is that Eurocracy would make that difficult. But would there be much demand for a licence which, by its very nature would have to be a 'National' instructor's licence with a relatively steep upgrade path to the JAR-FCL CPL? Perhaps the theoretical knowledge requirements and training for both the 'commercial' and 'instructional' elements of such a licence could be taught concurrently and examined concurrently?

Regarding medicals, perhaps a JAR Class 1 is way over the top for teaching at PPL or NPPL level. I know that's the view of a very senior medical chap at the Authority. So, if a pilot couldn't hold a full JAR Class 1 but could hold a Class 2, perhaps a suitably caveated Class 1 restricting the holders privileges accordingly could be issued?

I'm not sure that to accept anything below a JAR Class 2 medical certificate would be either acceptable or desirable.

In the big picture of things, a less expensive way of learning to fly could be to start with a NPPL taught by an enthusiastic 'National PPL Instructor', then upgrade to JAR-FCL PPL(A) with SEP Rating, night qualification and IMC Rating taught by a JAR-FCL FI?

Perhaps someone other than you or me might care to contribute to this thread, G-KEST? Or are they all reading 'Flight' from the back looking for airline FO jobs?

[G-KEST]

BEagle - Thanks for a perceptive post. You are right and yet you have touched on the absolute essence of my argument. The NPPL is a NATIONAL licence and NOT subject to JAR-FCL or ICAO Annex 1 requirements. Therefore it can be tailored as can those who instruct to the NPPL(SEP) syllabus, both flight and, somewhat revised, ground. Now you have it. Yes, those who turn to the back of Flight first, and I was one in the very distant past, have yet to be really heard on this forum but if they hide like ostriches then it WILL occur. Why should students HAVE to subsidise the mediocre remuneration levels of impoverised FI? There is another way. Let JAR-FCL students continue as at present paying through the nose and going abroad in increasing numbers. BUT let the NPPL guys benefit from a TOTALLY different cost structure with, in my opinion based on long experience, better motivated instructors. If that does not cause an explosive reaction, nothing will.
Look forward to an absolute avalanche of responses but not holding my breath...........!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Trapper 69

[walkingthewalk]

Here's one from a part-timer with a CPL no IR without ANY wish to give up the day job for an airline (not necessarily me):

Those who have spent the money on getting the required min. quals. (FI + BCPL then CPL theory) will obviously be miffed at having others alongside with lesser "investment".
In addition, I can see that FTOs will just use this as an excellent opportunity to jettison the CPL/FI types and STILL charge the same for instruction, using PPL/NPPL instructors.

I do agree that a Class 1 for PPL/NPPL instructing is onerous.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Happy new year to you all.

The current system is a shambles, with no thought being given to those whose only interest is recreational flying.

The take up of the NPPL by new students at clubs I'm familiar with has been non-existant, only people struggling for a medical seem to be interested.

Personally, I would be a bit miffed to have lesser mortals teaching at the same standard as myself! If you want to teach a subject to any proper depth, then you need to have more knowledge than you are trying to put across. CPL teaches PPL, ATPL teaches CPL etc. etc.
Whilst parts of the CPL course aren't totally relevant to PPL instruction, so what? The more knowledge you have about all aspects of flying, the better instructor you tend to be.

In Helicopter instruction there are still a large number of PPL instructors since they were and still are able to be paid for teaching (very well compared to fixed wing FI's). Since the advent of the requirements for CPL qualified instructors and a minimum of 300hrs TT on heli's, the number of new instructors has fallen through the floor, it has simply become too expensive to bother.
Has the quality of instruction got better? It's still to early to tell properly, but I doubt it.

[walkingthewalk]

I agree with Say Again Slowly on

"...you need to have more knowledge than you are trying to put across. CPL teaches PPL, ATPL teaches CPL etc. etc."

as this is what happens in academic circles. Even without this example I also think that it is common sense to have a deeper understanding before you can explain certain concepts - sometimes having to explain in many different ways.

as for "...the requirements for CPL qualified instructors and a minimum of 300hrs TT on heli's, the number of new instructors has fallen through the floor"

I suspect that those finishing their CPL/IR (fixed wing) will take some time to realise that paying further to get the FI rating will not mean that they can earn a living whilst waiting for an airline job. If and when this happens, the f/w instructor pool may start to shrink.

[G-KEST]

Thanks for the input however you can still ensure that the knowledge level is better. Ron Campbell used the concept of "knowledge level indicators" to ensure that a potential instructor had a better, often much better, understanding of the particular subject element than that expected from an ordinary licence holder. It worked 15 years ago - why not now, or at least next year????
Trapper 69

[Say again s l o w l y]

Did it work 15 years ago? Not having been in the the industry then (actually still at junior school!) I can't really comment on what instructors are like compared to that time.

Why would anybody go through extra training for

"knowledge level indicators" to ensure that a potential instructor had a better, often much better, understanding of the particular subject element than that expected from an ordinary licence holder

rather than do extra training to get a CPL?

I know many instructors who still have the old BCPL and many are fairly good, but their view of aviation can be limited by the minimal exposure they have to the industry as a whole. Very good at the basics and the early mechanics of flying but maybe a bit limited in respect to flying outside of PPL instruction.
This is quite a generalisation, but accurate according my own experience so far.

We often forget what students want, if I was doing a PPL I'd want the most qualifed individual possible if it wasn't going to cost me any more. I would want somebody who'd proven their knowledge by not just passing an FI course, of which standards can be very variable, but who has also shown aptitude by jumping through the hoops required to pass their commercials etc.

[walkingthewalk]

Ref. G-KEST:

The bit about "Ron Campbell used the concept of "knowledge level indicators" to ensure that a potential instructor... " smacks of AOPA tinkering again.

Let's just consider what if anything is wrong with the current system:

I for on ethink that apart from the Class 1 med. (IMHO it need not be more than Class 2) there isn't anything wrong.

If the cost of obtaining FI(r) status is too much then I do hope that it is a governing feature so that the numbers of instructors do not increase on a "wish" basis and remain on a "need" basis.

That way we may one day have a career instructor market at last.

Ref. Say Again Slowly:

Personnally I think that an instructor should not only understand the theory at a level above the PPL, they should also have the perspective of post PPL flying for pleasure. If such an instructor has many thousands of hours in an airline environment but hardly flies in the post PPL environment then he has little insight into the world of PPL flying.

[Say again s l o w l y]

WTW,

Most airline pilots who instruct "on the side" do it because of the enjoyment of flying light a/c and are very likely to have a bit of experience of the PPL world from their initial training. Whilst the airline environment is very different, I know many captains and F/O's who have their own a/c just for fun.

[walkingthewalk]

SAS,

"...many captains and F/O's who have their own a/c just for fun"

Now THAT is the type of perspective that IS useful. I do however address my concerns towards the ones who are just keeping their instructor rating current

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Im pretty sure that its not a Medical Issue that makes the requirement for a Class1, Its a remuneration issue.

You can teach on a Class 2 you just can't get paid.

Not 100% sure, please dont flame me.

[excrab]

Say Again Slowly,

You say that if you were a student taking a ppl you would want the "most qualified individual" as an instructor.

But who is the most qualified - a new FI(R) or whatever it's called now with 50 hrs instructional experience, a frozen ATPL and a copy of "Handling the big jets" in his flight case, or a guy (or gal) flying on a restricted BCPL/CPL with thousands of hours of instructional experience on light aircraft ?

Ability to instruct is primarily to do with experience - not just total number of flying hours but also instructing hours, time spent teaching and trying to find ways of solving students problems.

As far as an instructors view of aviation being limited - if we are talking about ppl instructing then I would suggest that the average ppl student isn't interested in an instructors experience of approved courses or instrument ratings. He is more likely to want to know (after obtaining his license) about IMC ratings, aerobatics, grass strips, how to join a group, how to fly VFR in France etc etc. I would suggest that someone who has been involved in grass roots aviation at club level is far better equipped to teach that than someone who has 200 hrs, passed all the atpl exams and is trying to pay off a 40k bank loan. And whether that instructor has in his pocket an ATPL, CPL, BCPL or NPPL is absolutely irrelevant.

Anyone who has any doubts about this should pay a visit to their nearest microlight club/school on a good flying day and see how the system works.

[walkingthewalk]

I would agree with "excarb" but would also insist that the theoretical knowledge must be thorough. The current CAA examinations are NOT the way to test ones knowledge - granted - and a more academic method of testing knowledge would be far better. The attitude of "let's see if we can fail you" must be turned into "let's see how much you have learned".

[G-KEST]

Well the hornets are finally rising. Some excellent posts for which I thank you. Remember the vast majority of those who come for a trial lesson have no earthly desire to fly as a career, Only those star struck individuals who mortgage themselves to the absolute hilt do that and become the partly disenchanted and demotivated instructors of today. Lift your eyes and see the future, not for yourselves, but for the vast increase in numbers of younger folk coming into private, sporting and recreational GA than at present with its swingeing costs that totally discourages so many. There is a better nad lower cost alternative than going to the USA as many of you must have done.....!!!! Replys please.
Trapper 69

[homeguard]

Instructors

The knowledge of many Instructors including myself was so often depressingly low and the attitude of so many of the old type of instructors during the so called 'old golden days' was nothing to be proud about.

There is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to have passed the CPL/.ATPL exams and also to have completed a CPL flying course has vastly increased the current Instructors general knowledge and has standardised flying training throughout the country. All that must be a good thing.

However, the fact, is for so many PPL's, prepared to somehow find the cash to gain the CPL/ATPL; the Instructor rating is added on as an afterthought, only after being rejected by the Airlines and having been told "come back when you have at least 1,000 hours +.

If we are going to revive the PPL market it isn't by devising a very dubious licence such as the NPPL, plus an equally rather dubious Instructor designed to teach it. Nor is it by demanding the current very silly requirement of passing CPL exams in the way it is currently done and later to undertake two courses of flying flown in the main using a C172/PA28 or similar. One to teach you how to find your way about followed by a second to teach someone else to find their way about. For the Instructor, one course and one test.

We actually need an Instructor profession! We need a recognised body that will set the standards, devise the knowledge requirement and involve the flying clubs own Senior Instructors, at their club, to carry out 'on the job' training interspersed say, with any number of short weekend/midweek courses with FIC Examiners working for that recognised body, setting and maintaining the highest standards, nationally.

The current CPL exam content could be the basis of knowledge having removed those parts wholely related to heavy aircraft and airline flying. The requirement to cram knowledge and demonstrate it over a few days when confined to a sweating and smelly room should go!

A close friend, an AME/CPL/Instructor, describes the knowledge testing process well. You enter the hall. At one end of the room a line of tressle tables on which there is a line of vegetable colanders. Written on one you will find your name. Beside each colander there is a bowl overflowing at the brim. At the far end of the room there is another row of tables on which stand a line of empty bowls. Each has a white line painted 75% up from it's base. At the whistle the candidate dumps his colander into his bowl and runs bitterly to the other end of the hall and dumps his load. Should the contents now in the once empty bowl rise above the line. It is a pass! ALL CANDIDATES exhausted, some depressed, sludge back, each with an EMPTY COLANDER. The courses for all this are, from commercial need, geared whether part time correspondence or indeed full time, to be not much more than pervaders of what you need to know and exam technique.

I believe that a structured process towards becoming an Instructor undertaken in a progressive manner with the local club as the base will enable many more to participate who really want to do it. I also believe that those who may wish later to fly commercially will also see it as the first step and equally benefit. As important it will put some deperately needed cash into the clubs.

[Say again s l o w l y]

excrab, you have a very good point, but the situation I'm describing the instructor is not an 50 Hr FI who doesn't really know anything yet (I was that individual) but has a 'decent' amount of experience. A brand spanking new FI, no matter what licence they hold cannot be as good as a highly experienced person, though the learning curve is very steep.

[G-KEST]

Many thanks indeed to all who both responded and those who merely looked at the thread. My three papers on the NPPL(SEP) written for the PFA, one of which concerned PPL and NPPL(SEP) instructors are now with the NPPL steering group. A couple of organisations have commented that their relevant committees do not meet early enough for them to permit inclusion of the papers on the next steering group meeting agenda. What a shame that extraordinary proposals cannot generate an "extraordinary" committee meeting. If you can influence both AOPA and GAPAN to alter their current stance this would be a great help. Time is not on the side of GA if we are to attract many more and younger folk into our recreational and sporting passion. Thanks again,
Trapper 69 or in fact Barry Tempest MRAeS

[BEagle]

Barry, there is no huge urgency to rush into a decision on your papers. There are other far more important matters which the NPPL P&SC must agree on first - such as the formal ANO amendment which needs to be drafted correctly this time.

Both the GAPAN instuctor committee and AOPA's instructor committee now have copies of your papers and will study them before their next meetings, all of which are totally voluntary and unpaid. It would be a bit much to expect them to hold extraordinary meetings to discuss something for which there really isn't any huge urgency.

You've already tried to drum up support on this thread for NPPL-holders to be permitted to instruct for the NPPL. That didn't receive any overwhelming response for or against, so it needs time and detailed study. Even if a vote in favour was forthcoming, the law of the land requires that a regulatory impact assessment must be held - and you've got little chance of that being achieved quickly.

Use of permit aeroplanes for flight instruction? Some have fairly 'individual' handling characteristics and are perhaps unsuitable for training ab-initio pilots. Who would approve individual types for training? I would vote for the CAA, not the PFA. As I've said before, restrictions which currently apply to permit aeroplanes (such as not being permitted to fly over congested areas at ANY height) preclude the teaching of cetain exercises - how are you going to navigate PROPERLY if you have to keep turning off track to avoid overflight of any built-up area. Perhaps it would be better just to press for an easing of the current maintenance and inspection requirements for training aeroplanes?

Use of other than licensed or government aerodromes for certain training activities is already being looked at by the CAA; let's hear what they have to say first and then perhaps negotiate.

But general approval for NPPL-holding FIs to instruct in permit aeroplanes from any aerodrome? I doubt it; although some might be fine, the floodgates could open to dodgy operators with tatty old cloth bombers working out of muddy farm fields. That sort of thing must be resisted at all costs.

AOPA consults with industry and they started the whole NPPL ball rolling. GAPAN assists and observes, BGA, BMAA, GAMTA also consult with their industry members and speak for them on the NPPL P&SC. Let the industry bodies study your proposals and discuss them in committee when they've had a chance to do so.

One thing that most people do agree upon, however, is that there should be no relaxation on medical standards for FIs below the JAA Class 2 medical which is all a JAR-FCL PPL hodling FI(A) currently needs for non-remunerated flight instruction.

[G-KEST]

BEagle - We must agree to differ. The parlous state of UK GA demands that we have an affordable initial step into the private, recreational and sporting aviation we all enjoy so very much. I would check the threads on the Flyer and Key Publishing sites then you would see just how much real support is out there. Our future students will not thank anyone for holding up the process of a major cost reduction that would be possible for the NPPL(SEP). There are far too many folk who look at our UK prices for a PPL or NPPL(SEP) and vote with their feet in the direction of the USA. A significant loss of income to UK GA and one that could reduce considerably. READ MY LIPS in the form of my papers which took much midnight oil burning. IT IS IMPORTANT and perhaps GAPAN and AOPA (of which I have been a member for around 40 years) could call an ECM just for once. As far as the NPPL is concerned I think you will find that my own response to the appalling CAA RIA on JAR-FCL was one of the catalysts for the concept. Ask PFA, AOPA and GAMTA on that. They gave me support back then.
Cheers and out......................I hope.
Trapper 69