Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately my attitude of suspicision is borne out of bitter experience. As I've said many times, a lot of people are very good, but there is a huge gap in competancies. Most PPL's fly 12 hours every 2 years. Does that make a competent pilot?
I don't really have a holier than thou' attitude, but it does seem to come across as that and I will apologise for it
I know and have worked with FI's who also leave an awful lot to be desired and I would rather bring them up to speed than spend time with a whole bunch of new people.
I'll leave aside the BGA and BMAA as I don't really know enough about them to comment. I only know about my sector of the industry, yes there are many issues, but this is not the way to solve the underlying problem of cost.
Nothing I have read would change my opinion of this matter, but everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint.
I don't really have a holier than thou' attitude, but it does seem to come across as that and I will apologise for it
I know and have worked with FI's who also leave an awful lot to be desired and I would rather bring them up to speed than spend time with a whole bunch of new people.
I'll leave aside the BGA and BMAA as I don't really know enough about them to comment. I only know about my sector of the industry, yes there are many issues, but this is not the way to solve the underlying problem of cost.
Nothing I have read would change my opinion of this matter, but everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My turn shortstripper - and do let's remain detached from personalised remarks, please.
The original motion put forward was that more people would take up flying if the instructors did not have to be qualified as they are at the moment. All they needed was a PPL and the FI course.
This motion was apparently based on the cost of gaining the CPL.
Based on the above information, you can see that the motion does not have any affinity with logic.
The original motion put forward was that more people would take up flying if the instructors did not have to be qualified as they are at the moment. All they needed was a PPL and the FI course.
This motion was apparently based on the cost of gaining the CPL.
Based on the above information, you can see that the motion does not have any affinity with logic.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr no actually if you read the original motion posted it was what do others think of a NPPL/PPL being able to teach with an instructor rateing and not having to go to the expense of gaining a CPL (or at least the CPL papers).
I'm sure if you put it to the punters that their instructors didn't have to be qualified they would say "Sod how cheap I can learn ... I'm gone!"
Based on that I'm sure there is no logic, but that isn't what is being put forward. What is has plenty of logic.
It was never my intention to get personal BTW ... I just kind of got drawn in ... sorry!
SS
I'm sure if you put it to the punters that their instructors didn't have to be qualified they would say "Sod how cheap I can learn ... I'm gone!"
Based on that I'm sure there is no logic, but that isn't what is being put forward. What is has plenty of logic.
It was never my intention to get personal BTW ... I just kind of got drawn in ... sorry!
SS
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shortstripper, you are right - but there were comments immediately after the very first post that were along the lines of what I mentioned.
Fine, so would you please explain why the basis should change.
I am not aware of any instructor shortages so that clearly cannot be the reason.
We have dozens of instructors waiting to instruct at most clubs around the country already.
Fine, so would you please explain why the basis should change.
I am not aware of any instructor shortages so that clearly cannot be the reason.
We have dozens of instructors waiting to instruct at most clubs around the country already.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a PPL(H), CPL(H), and rotary FI(R).
When I got my PPL(H), I really knew very little. After spending lots of time and money doing the CPL exams and flying I knew a lot more - but most of it simply wasn't relevant to either the type of flying I was doing, or being an instructor. I learned to fly helicopters properly - or at least started to - on my FI course. And having talked to several instructors, both f/w and rotary, that seems to be the general feeling and experience.
So don't any of you think I'd have been better off spending the time and money that I spent doing the CPL, on doing some theory and practice more related to instructing, since that was always what I wanted to do? Then, SAS, maybe I wouldn't have been "just a PPL", but a PPL with a thorough grounding in advanced flying and instructional techniques, rather than a CPL who feels she's just barely scratched the surface of both of those.
My CPL may impress people. I may have done a bit more instrument flying than I otherwise would, learned how to fly and follow an OS map, and learned loads about machmeters and jet streams and all about radio waves. But when I have a student in an R22 who's hellbent on killing us both, it's really not a lot of use! That's when more actual vocational instructor training might perhaps stand me in good stead.
When I got my PPL(H), I really knew very little. After spending lots of time and money doing the CPL exams and flying I knew a lot more - but most of it simply wasn't relevant to either the type of flying I was doing, or being an instructor. I learned to fly helicopters properly - or at least started to - on my FI course. And having talked to several instructors, both f/w and rotary, that seems to be the general feeling and experience.
So don't any of you think I'd have been better off spending the time and money that I spent doing the CPL, on doing some theory and practice more related to instructing, since that was always what I wanted to do? Then, SAS, maybe I wouldn't have been "just a PPL", but a PPL with a thorough grounding in advanced flying and instructional techniques, rather than a CPL who feels she's just barely scratched the surface of both of those.
My CPL may impress people. I may have done a bit more instrument flying than I otherwise would, learned how to fly and follow an OS map, and learned loads about machmeters and jet streams and all about radio waves. But when I have a student in an R22 who's hellbent on killing us both, it's really not a lot of use! That's when more actual vocational instructor training might perhaps stand me in good stead.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally disagree with you Whirly about learning to fly on an FI course. I'd already reached an OK standard whilst doing my CPL and especially my I/R, I don't feel the FI course changed my actual flying, but this is in relation to me rather than anyone else.
Anything you learn will be of benefit to your students at some point, therefore the more you know, the more knowledge you can pass along.
I learnt very quickly once I started with students that instructing is not just about how well you actually hand fly the thing, the psycology and how to enable people to be in a situation where they can learn is far more important. This came from me, not any course I'd been on. In this respect, the current FI courses don't prepare you as well as you really need. Though I suppose this is why you become an FI(R) to start with.
My main issue with having PPL's teaching, is the incredibly variable standard of competence. You can be far more sure of 'quality' with somebody who has reached the level of CPL.
There are of course ways and means around this problem, but all they would do is add another level of complexity (and cost!) into the system. There are already plenty of FI who have CPL's around, why do we need to add another layer?
Still nobody has identified that there is a problem with the current crop, so why change anything? Why were the 'good old days' better? Again is it a case of rose tinted specs?
I am suspicious of G-KEST's motives in all of this (this may be totally unfounded however) is it because he himself has recently lost his medical and wishes to change the system to suit himself rather than the industry as a whole?
Again, this may not be true, but if not could you lay out your case EXACTLY for why the system needs a change. With any data you have that proves whether we are 'worse' today than we used to be.
Anything you learn will be of benefit to your students at some point, therefore the more you know, the more knowledge you can pass along.
I learnt very quickly once I started with students that instructing is not just about how well you actually hand fly the thing, the psycology and how to enable people to be in a situation where they can learn is far more important. This came from me, not any course I'd been on. In this respect, the current FI courses don't prepare you as well as you really need. Though I suppose this is why you become an FI(R) to start with.
My main issue with having PPL's teaching, is the incredibly variable standard of competence. You can be far more sure of 'quality' with somebody who has reached the level of CPL.
There are of course ways and means around this problem, but all they would do is add another level of complexity (and cost!) into the system. There are already plenty of FI who have CPL's around, why do we need to add another layer?
Still nobody has identified that there is a problem with the current crop, so why change anything? Why were the 'good old days' better? Again is it a case of rose tinted specs?
I am suspicious of G-KEST's motives in all of this (this may be totally unfounded however) is it because he himself has recently lost his medical and wishes to change the system to suit himself rather than the industry as a whole?
Again, this may not be true, but if not could you lay out your case EXACTLY for why the system needs a change. With any data you have that proves whether we are 'worse' today than we used to be.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nppl instructors
whirlibird makes the valid points.
The tag on the ticket isn't the issue. Of course the standards demanded for the CPL test will ensure a higher standard of flying technique but the CPL course is very narrow in content and the training is really no more than a rehearsal toward the end performance (Skill Test).
The knowledge gained in CPL studies is illuminating, however, I think we all agree, much of it has little relevance to the basics of flying nor backs up the needs of a Flying Instructor.
A PPL should be once more able to become a Flying Instructor albiet with a much higher standard of knowledge than under the old UK system. i.e. exams dedicated to instructing.
If, Say Again Slowly, you didn't learn much more about flying during your FIC course, then I find that very disappointing. Perhaps that indicates that a number of FIC courses require review.
The tag on the ticket isn't the issue. Of course the standards demanded for the CPL test will ensure a higher standard of flying technique but the CPL course is very narrow in content and the training is really no more than a rehearsal toward the end performance (Skill Test).
The knowledge gained in CPL studies is illuminating, however, I think we all agree, much of it has little relevance to the basics of flying nor backs up the needs of a Flying Instructor.
A PPL should be once more able to become a Flying Instructor albiet with a much higher standard of knowledge than under the old UK system. i.e. exams dedicated to instructing.
If, Say Again Slowly, you didn't learn much more about flying during your FIC course, then I find that very disappointing. Perhaps that indicates that a number of FIC courses require review.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of a sweeping statement really (I do seem to be prone to those!) what I meant was, that my actual handling skills didn't change much, but my outlook was certainly changed. At least as important if not more so.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS (and others)
I do see where you're coming from and I do see the need to set a standard of competance ... but why at CPL? Surely this can be achieved at the point of the FI course?
The present system has actually only been around for about 15 years so I don't really use rose tinted specs to see back that far. What I can see is the effects the new system is having now that it's starting to bite ... more on those effects in a bit.
I do wonder what will happen as our older experienced career instructors leave? Incidently, many of these where PPL instrutors who turned professional. This may be a bit of a broad statement (we're all guilty of those) but many of our present crop of instructors are simply filling a gap in their careers. What happens if the airline industry does take this promised upturn
? who will be left? A few who decide they enjoy instructing and want to stay (that's good) and those who don't find the job they really want and have to stay (that's bad).
Why change?
Is the present system really that good? Let's see ...
It forces out our older very experienced instructors who fail to make the class 1 medical ... Hmmm, well we can carry passengers with a class 2, so is the risk that much greater?
It forces those who want to instruct and go no further to train to a level that is way beyond what they need or want. OK, so you do need to know more than the level you teach (we've established that) ... but I'm talking basic PPL here. Your required flying experience and FI training naturally makes you far higher in knowledge than that needed to qualify for a PPL.
Is the present system really that bad? lets see ...
In essense the present system is probably not too bad, but it is flawed. The cracks are starting to appear and I honestly think a change is needed.
Firstly, the broad aviation knowledge base is dissappearing from our clubs. A present instructor can qualify on a fast track CPL course, tag on an FIR and be instructing within 18 mths. I don't doubt he/she will be very knowledgable on the theory side, their flying will be well polished and I'm sure they will be very very good at getting their students through their PPL's. Trouble is, then what for that student? Club aircraft hire? IMC? IR? Multi? ... fun?? I see more and more PPL's emerging (or leaving) who've never heard of the PFA, of what it's like to have a group share, or own, or aerobat, or air race ect ect. They often know nothing about what it "CAN" be like to fly! Why? because their instructor hasn't or doesn't either! I know many do ... but a surprising number don't!
Secondly, the cost of becoming an instructor! It's horrendous! If you are using the FI as a means to an end, then to an extent the cost and the crap wages are kind of justified. If you just want to instructn then the cost of getting there is prohibitive. It will continue to be badly payed whatever, so why bitch about that side ... it's a fact of life even if unjustified. Far from adding another layer and adding to the costs, what is proposed will make it more accessable as it once was and bring costs (to the prospective FI) down. Also to turn upside down your "plenty of CPL/FI's around to fill posts" ... there were never thousands more unemployed instructors back then either. Plenty of unemployed CPL's and ATPL's yes ... but what's new?
The answer?
Like I said in an earlier post, I don't really know but we can all make suggestions. So what about something on the lines of ...
FI (R) = PPL + 200 P1 hrs + FI course + class 2 medical
FI = CPL + 200 hrs instructing experience.
That way those who progress to unrestricted FI or teach advanced level need a CPL or higher and will naturally demand a higher wage. Those that don't may have to live with the poor wages but like I said ... fact of life. At least they will have no illusions and stay instructing for either the love of it or to progress up the instructor ladder rather than off to be airline pilots.
Maybe G-KEST is looking at it from a selfish prospective ... but so what? is he wrong too? maybe? maybe not? and maybe those CPL/FI's instructing now are also? I can understand that ... it's human nature. But does that make it right?
SS
BTW ... Anyone who knows nothing of the BGA or BMAA system, I'd suggest you find out, because to know nothing makes you a bit blinkered ... and I mean that with the greatest respect, not as an insult.
I do see where you're coming from and I do see the need to set a standard of competance ... but why at CPL? Surely this can be achieved at the point of the FI course?
The present system has actually only been around for about 15 years so I don't really use rose tinted specs to see back that far. What I can see is the effects the new system is having now that it's starting to bite ... more on those effects in a bit.
I do wonder what will happen as our older experienced career instructors leave? Incidently, many of these where PPL instrutors who turned professional. This may be a bit of a broad statement (we're all guilty of those) but many of our present crop of instructors are simply filling a gap in their careers. What happens if the airline industry does take this promised upturn
? who will be left? A few who decide they enjoy instructing and want to stay (that's good) and those who don't find the job they really want and have to stay (that's bad).Why change?
Is the present system really that good? Let's see ...
It forces out our older very experienced instructors who fail to make the class 1 medical ... Hmmm, well we can carry passengers with a class 2, so is the risk that much greater?
It forces those who want to instruct and go no further to train to a level that is way beyond what they need or want. OK, so you do need to know more than the level you teach (we've established that) ... but I'm talking basic PPL here. Your required flying experience and FI training naturally makes you far higher in knowledge than that needed to qualify for a PPL.
Is the present system really that bad? lets see ...
In essense the present system is probably not too bad, but it is flawed. The cracks are starting to appear and I honestly think a change is needed.
Firstly, the broad aviation knowledge base is dissappearing from our clubs. A present instructor can qualify on a fast track CPL course, tag on an FIR and be instructing within 18 mths. I don't doubt he/she will be very knowledgable on the theory side, their flying will be well polished and I'm sure they will be very very good at getting their students through their PPL's. Trouble is, then what for that student? Club aircraft hire? IMC? IR? Multi? ... fun?? I see more and more PPL's emerging (or leaving) who've never heard of the PFA, of what it's like to have a group share, or own, or aerobat, or air race ect ect. They often know nothing about what it "CAN" be like to fly! Why? because their instructor hasn't or doesn't either! I know many do ... but a surprising number don't!
Secondly, the cost of becoming an instructor! It's horrendous! If you are using the FI as a means to an end, then to an extent the cost and the crap wages are kind of justified. If you just want to instructn then the cost of getting there is prohibitive. It will continue to be badly payed whatever, so why bitch about that side ... it's a fact of life even if unjustified. Far from adding another layer and adding to the costs, what is proposed will make it more accessable as it once was and bring costs (to the prospective FI) down. Also to turn upside down your "plenty of CPL/FI's around to fill posts" ... there were never thousands more unemployed instructors back then either. Plenty of unemployed CPL's and ATPL's yes ... but what's new?
The answer?
Like I said in an earlier post, I don't really know but we can all make suggestions. So what about something on the lines of ...
FI (R) = PPL + 200 P1 hrs + FI course + class 2 medical
FI = CPL + 200 hrs instructing experience.
That way those who progress to unrestricted FI or teach advanced level need a CPL or higher and will naturally demand a higher wage. Those that don't may have to live with the poor wages but like I said ... fact of life. At least they will have no illusions and stay instructing for either the love of it or to progress up the instructor ladder rather than off to be airline pilots.
Maybe G-KEST is looking at it from a selfish prospective ... but so what? is he wrong too? maybe? maybe not? and maybe those CPL/FI's instructing now are also? I can understand that ... it's human nature. But does that make it right?
SS
BTW ... Anyone who knows nothing of the BGA or BMAA system, I'd suggest you find out, because to know nothing makes you a bit blinkered ... and I mean that with the greatest respect, not as an insult.
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
Hello again,
Am I selfish - hard to say really. My current NPPL(SEP) is with a DVLA group 1 only so I am confined to thoroughly enjoying my one third share in a Steen Skybolt solo and as was the case this Sunday afternoon for 25 minutes of which 10 were doing aerobatics to plus 4 and minus 2 G. Bliss............!!
I really did enjoy my instructing from 1960 to 1999 with the last 31 years as a professional. The first 8 as a PPL progressing from AFI through FI to CFI and examiner, all with merely a PPL. Some of my then students graduated through the self-improver route to ATPL's and positions as senior captains with BA and other airlines. One even became a senior inspector with Flight Ops at the Authority and one with FCL6. So there.............!!!!
Should the situation change then it is highly unlikely that I would ever get a JAR-MED class 1 again however it was a mild cardiac infarction I suffered in 1999 not a total frontal lobotomy. My skills as a FI and FIE were not affected in any way so if I could get a DVLA group 2 to allow passenger carrying then why not allow me to instruct ab-initio NPPL(SEP) students since, on moral grounds, is there a difference between a passenger and a student? Not in my considered opinion. Yes I would have to retread but do you really think this would be any problem with my experience over some 44 years - if you do you must be barmy. Remember old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill....!!! Especially on instructor renewal tests.
SAS - you really do not have the depth of experience to know what you are talking about in decrying the efforts of all those PPL instructors who were presented with a BCPL back in 1988. Frankly I think you an intolerant b*****d and a reactionary individual who cannot accept justifiable change when the sense is in front of you.
GA in the UK is in an appalling situation with the average age of students going through the 40 barrier. That is all except the would be airline jockeys who are looking for a career in the airlines and see instructing as a mark time period to give time to whinge about pay and conditions. I do accept that there are dedicated and highly professional instructors out there who have gained their qualifications through a difficult and expensive process. But why should this be the case for everyone? There could be a better way however those who will not learn from history must be persuaded in the course of rational discussion.
(withdraws to place tin helmet on aged head and retreat towards but not yet inside blast shelter)
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Am I selfish - hard to say really. My current NPPL(SEP) is with a DVLA group 1 only so I am confined to thoroughly enjoying my one third share in a Steen Skybolt solo and as was the case this Sunday afternoon for 25 minutes of which 10 were doing aerobatics to plus 4 and minus 2 G. Bliss............!!
I really did enjoy my instructing from 1960 to 1999 with the last 31 years as a professional. The first 8 as a PPL progressing from AFI through FI to CFI and examiner, all with merely a PPL. Some of my then students graduated through the self-improver route to ATPL's and positions as senior captains with BA and other airlines. One even became a senior inspector with Flight Ops at the Authority and one with FCL6. So there.............!!!!
Should the situation change then it is highly unlikely that I would ever get a JAR-MED class 1 again however it was a mild cardiac infarction I suffered in 1999 not a total frontal lobotomy. My skills as a FI and FIE were not affected in any way so if I could get a DVLA group 2 to allow passenger carrying then why not allow me to instruct ab-initio NPPL(SEP) students since, on moral grounds, is there a difference between a passenger and a student? Not in my considered opinion. Yes I would have to retread but do you really think this would be any problem with my experience over some 44 years - if you do you must be barmy. Remember old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill....!!! Especially on instructor renewal tests.
SAS - you really do not have the depth of experience to know what you are talking about in decrying the efforts of all those PPL instructors who were presented with a BCPL back in 1988. Frankly I think you an intolerant b*****d and a reactionary individual who cannot accept justifiable change when the sense is in front of you.
GA in the UK is in an appalling situation with the average age of students going through the 40 barrier. That is all except the would be airline jockeys who are looking for a career in the airlines and see instructing as a mark time period to give time to whinge about pay and conditions. I do accept that there are dedicated and highly professional instructors out there who have gained their qualifications through a difficult and expensive process. But why should this be the case for everyone? There could be a better way however those who will not learn from history must be persuaded in the course of rational discussion.
(withdraws to place tin helmet on aged head and retreat towards but not yet inside blast shelter)
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nppl etc
The last two contributions ( shortstripper and G-KEST ) take us forward. I've already said my bit towards this debate, but;
How about.
1) Class 2 or class 1(restricted) medical. If KEST can pull +4g, -2g quite happily at weekends he can teach my students anyday.
2) How about 100hrs P1 and 200hrs total time ( as with the JAA CPL )
3) FIC course extended to 45 hours minimum training to include much more on navigation training techniques ( currently skimped on the FIC courses ) bringing the PPL candidate to a much higher standard, before teaching the student. The 5 hours mutual bit of the FIC to be replaced by 5 hours supervised instructing within a flying school and supervised by an approved for the purpose CFI.
4) Exams geared to instructing but maybe derived from the current CPL databank as appropiate. Take away the ridiculous requirement to pass papers within just 18 months. Allow 3 - 5 years. CPL/ATPL exams can give exemptions, other than the dedicated instructing technique papers.
5) CPL/ATPL holders to gain say 12 hours exemption from the 45 hours FIC, reflecting the high level Navigation training already received during CPL training.
How about.
1) Class 2 or class 1(restricted) medical. If KEST can pull +4g, -2g quite happily at weekends he can teach my students anyday.
2) How about 100hrs P1 and 200hrs total time ( as with the JAA CPL )
3) FIC course extended to 45 hours minimum training to include much more on navigation training techniques ( currently skimped on the FIC courses ) bringing the PPL candidate to a much higher standard, before teaching the student. The 5 hours mutual bit of the FIC to be replaced by 5 hours supervised instructing within a flying school and supervised by an approved for the purpose CFI.
4) Exams geared to instructing but maybe derived from the current CPL databank as appropiate. Take away the ridiculous requirement to pass papers within just 18 months. Allow 3 - 5 years. CPL/ATPL exams can give exemptions, other than the dedicated instructing technique papers.
5) CPL/ATPL holders to gain say 12 hours exemption from the 45 hours FIC, reflecting the high level Navigation training already received during CPL training.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be a reactionary b*****d, but I am certainly not blinkered.
I want to see what are the real problems, yes the average age for a PPL maybe in the 40's, but is that any different from 20 years ago?
I will admit to a slight lack of knowledge about the BGA and BMAA, but I am certainly not unaware of their existance and my ignorance is compared to knowledge of current PPL issues.
My annoyance is with the peculiarily British disease of looking back with fondness and forgetting how crap things really were. If there are problems with the current system, lets find them and fix them, rather than go through the enormous hassle and expense to change a system that is working currently.
I for one am fed up with things changing every 5 minutes and having to explain these changes ad-nauseam. The change from UK to JAR being a prime example that is still causing mass confusion.
Why are there less PPL's than there were 20 years ago, simple COST.
Who is teaching is totally irrelevant. The current crop of FI's have CPL's, the last lot had BCPL's before that PPL's. So what. We all have hoops to jump through and this is just another one.
Do you need a CPL to teach PPL's, no of course not and in theory I agree that the current system is daft if all you are going to teach is ab-initio PPL, but many instructors teach at a higher level, CPL and I/R for example. How are they to get the experience if there are loads of 'cheap' PPL instructors around?
What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the whole licensing system and I don't feel it is likely or necessary.
G-KEST, you helped write the current rules, now you fall foul of them on a medical issue. It seems like bad grapes to try and change them to suit yourself, since I know plenty of others who can't teach any more for similar reasons. They understood why and accepted it.
I would NOT be happy to have somebody working for me who had had a Heart attack no matter how minor. The risk is not worth taking when you ahve a Trial lesson on board and if you were incapacitated they would have virtually NO chance. I couldn't ask someone to take that risk.
Basically you fail my Grandmother test. Would I be happy to let you take her flying? No chance. Harsh I know, but that's life unfortunately. Age and treachery may be true, but not if you are unconcious and that is the real nub of this argument for me.
If somebody wishes to risk their own neck by flying on a reduced medical, then thats fine by me, but taking a paying passenger who wouldn't be aware of the medical history of the pilot is totally a no-no. Class ones all round please.
I want to see what are the real problems, yes the average age for a PPL maybe in the 40's, but is that any different from 20 years ago?
I will admit to a slight lack of knowledge about the BGA and BMAA, but I am certainly not unaware of their existance and my ignorance is compared to knowledge of current PPL issues.
My annoyance is with the peculiarily British disease of looking back with fondness and forgetting how crap things really were. If there are problems with the current system, lets find them and fix them, rather than go through the enormous hassle and expense to change a system that is working currently.
I for one am fed up with things changing every 5 minutes and having to explain these changes ad-nauseam. The change from UK to JAR being a prime example that is still causing mass confusion.
Why are there less PPL's than there were 20 years ago, simple COST.
Who is teaching is totally irrelevant. The current crop of FI's have CPL's, the last lot had BCPL's before that PPL's. So what. We all have hoops to jump through and this is just another one.
Do you need a CPL to teach PPL's, no of course not and in theory I agree that the current system is daft if all you are going to teach is ab-initio PPL, but many instructors teach at a higher level, CPL and I/R for example. How are they to get the experience if there are loads of 'cheap' PPL instructors around?
What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the whole licensing system and I don't feel it is likely or necessary.
G-KEST, you helped write the current rules, now you fall foul of them on a medical issue. It seems like bad grapes to try and change them to suit yourself, since I know plenty of others who can't teach any more for similar reasons. They understood why and accepted it.
I would NOT be happy to have somebody working for me who had had a Heart attack no matter how minor. The risk is not worth taking when you ahve a Trial lesson on board and if you were incapacitated they would have virtually NO chance. I couldn't ask someone to take that risk.
Basically you fail my Grandmother test. Would I be happy to let you take her flying? No chance. Harsh I know, but that's life unfortunately. Age and treachery may be true, but not if you are unconcious and that is the real nub of this argument for me.
If somebody wishes to risk their own neck by flying on a reduced medical, then thats fine by me, but taking a paying passenger who wouldn't be aware of the medical history of the pilot is totally a no-no. Class ones all round please.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK is a country where the Aviation Authority seems to have lost control.
Increasingly, Pilots based in the country fly on licenses from various other parts of the world meaning that the CAA is unable to directly enforce any licensing action or ensure safety standards.
These and other local pilots are flying aircraft registered in far flung parts of the world meaning that the CAA has no control over the airworthiness and equipment of those aircraft.
Pilots who can't meet the appropriate Medical standards accepted across Europe as being safe simply find another country that has lower standards and defeats the CAAs attempts to maintain it's own standards of safety.
The reason why everyone in the UK constantly complains about JARs is that the UK has made a hash of the implementation and the large Euro sceptic part of the UK views anything not wholely British in origin to be alien. Far better for the CAA to have simply published JAR-FCL unedited as a schedule to the ANO and simply said "there are the rules".
The NPPL was introduced because the aviation authority that actively encourages pilots to use facilities in other parts of the world while aviation at home suffers, had to be seen to be doing something. In doing so, it backtracked over decades of it's own medical standards and produced the NPPL - a licence that has been shown to be not for the recreational pilot but more for the pilot cut-off by medical misfortune.
There is simply not enough demand for the NPPL from abinitio pilots (other than the microlight fraternity) to justify an industry based on such poor possible return.
I have no problems with PPLs with suitable experience teaching at any level of the spectrum. There are a few PPL IR's that I know who can teach the IR better than some wet behind the ears CPL/IRs simply because thay have lots of appropriate practical experience.
What I do have a problem with is the idea that having PPL instructors will be cheaper and thus make the NPPL cheaper and thus attract some students. It simply will not work.
I would not like to be the person who must ask the CAA to lower it's standards for cost reasons because that would simply be a satatement that it is only money that counts.
From the previous posts, the debate seems to be moving from a point where the idea was that the CPL knowledge was a waste of time to a position of agreeing that some if not all the knowledge is required and that the instructor course should be extended.
Surely extending the course means extra expense for the PPL instructor who with little posibility of having any future students would see little future chance of recovering their investment and thus would be unwilling to waste the mony available for what limited flying the NPPL permits on a course with little if any reward.
The whole "Traial Lesson" operation in the UK is currently simply Public Transport (joy rides) under a poor disguise. The numbers of trial lessons compared to PPL starts prove that either this is the case - or instructing standards are so poor that lots of potential students are frightened away.
Perhaps the CAA are ignoring much of the activity because at least the operations are in Public Transport certified aircraft and piloted by Commercial pilots. Would they do the same for a fleet of C150s and PPLs giving joy rides as birthday presents every Saturday and Sunday?
What is also being ignored is the changes in society generally. Could it be that most students are 40+ years because when it comes to recreational flying only, most people will be 40 or more before thay can assign a large chunk of the family income on such pleasures (house prices, levels of debt etc).
Piloting a little aircraft in circles outside town for £100 plus per hour is not as awe inspiring today as it was 20 years ago. Most teenagers have flown B747s in virtual reality round the world at little expense.
The emergence of many a Low cost bus of the air now means that holding one's chest out at the golf club bar and stating that one is a pilot simply puts onself in the well paid bus driver category - not near as much cudos as placing one's porche keys in view!
The answer - stop drumming down and start promoting what we have got - provide a link between that teenager doing circuits at Meigs and doing something interesting at the local airfield.
Is France or Germany about to have it's own NPPL. If not then why not (unless it is a bad idea)!.
Rant over.
Regards,
DFC
Increasingly, Pilots based in the country fly on licenses from various other parts of the world meaning that the CAA is unable to directly enforce any licensing action or ensure safety standards.
These and other local pilots are flying aircraft registered in far flung parts of the world meaning that the CAA has no control over the airworthiness and equipment of those aircraft.
Pilots who can't meet the appropriate Medical standards accepted across Europe as being safe simply find another country that has lower standards and defeats the CAAs attempts to maintain it's own standards of safety.
The reason why everyone in the UK constantly complains about JARs is that the UK has made a hash of the implementation and the large Euro sceptic part of the UK views anything not wholely British in origin to be alien. Far better for the CAA to have simply published JAR-FCL unedited as a schedule to the ANO and simply said "there are the rules".
The NPPL was introduced because the aviation authority that actively encourages pilots to use facilities in other parts of the world while aviation at home suffers, had to be seen to be doing something. In doing so, it backtracked over decades of it's own medical standards and produced the NPPL - a licence that has been shown to be not for the recreational pilot but more for the pilot cut-off by medical misfortune.
There is simply not enough demand for the NPPL from abinitio pilots (other than the microlight fraternity) to justify an industry based on such poor possible return.
I have no problems with PPLs with suitable experience teaching at any level of the spectrum. There are a few PPL IR's that I know who can teach the IR better than some wet behind the ears CPL/IRs simply because thay have lots of appropriate practical experience.
What I do have a problem with is the idea that having PPL instructors will be cheaper and thus make the NPPL cheaper and thus attract some students. It simply will not work.
I would not like to be the person who must ask the CAA to lower it's standards for cost reasons because that would simply be a satatement that it is only money that counts.
From the previous posts, the debate seems to be moving from a point where the idea was that the CPL knowledge was a waste of time to a position of agreeing that some if not all the knowledge is required and that the instructor course should be extended.
Surely extending the course means extra expense for the PPL instructor who with little posibility of having any future students would see little future chance of recovering their investment and thus would be unwilling to waste the mony available for what limited flying the NPPL permits on a course with little if any reward.
The whole "Traial Lesson" operation in the UK is currently simply Public Transport (joy rides) under a poor disguise. The numbers of trial lessons compared to PPL starts prove that either this is the case - or instructing standards are so poor that lots of potential students are frightened away.
Perhaps the CAA are ignoring much of the activity because at least the operations are in Public Transport certified aircraft and piloted by Commercial pilots. Would they do the same for a fleet of C150s and PPLs giving joy rides as birthday presents every Saturday and Sunday?
What is also being ignored is the changes in society generally. Could it be that most students are 40+ years because when it comes to recreational flying only, most people will be 40 or more before thay can assign a large chunk of the family income on such pleasures (house prices, levels of debt etc).
Piloting a little aircraft in circles outside town for £100 plus per hour is not as awe inspiring today as it was 20 years ago. Most teenagers have flown B747s in virtual reality round the world at little expense.
The emergence of many a Low cost bus of the air now means that holding one's chest out at the golf club bar and stating that one is a pilot simply puts onself in the well paid bus driver category - not near as much cudos as placing one's porche keys in view!
The answer - stop drumming down and start promoting what we have got - provide a link between that teenager doing circuits at Meigs and doing something interesting at the local airfield.
Is France or Germany about to have it's own NPPL. If not then why not (unless it is a bad idea)!.
Rant over.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok let's get away from the mud slinging ... and yes I'm as guilty as well. It doesn't help much.
If I can be permitted to address a few of your points SAS, please don't think I'm taking a pop at you. You arguments are quite representative of many of those who are happy(ish) with the present system so I'll use them as a simple reference point.
SAS ... "My annoyance is with the peculiarily British disease of looking back with fondness and forgetting how crap things really were. If there are problems with the current system, lets find them and fix them, rather than go through the enormous hassle and expense to change a system that is working currently."
No offence but as you have admitted you weren't involved back then ... how would you know it was crap? I was and I thought the system worked pretty well. It was only really changed because of the European (dis)harmonisation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
SAS ... "Why are there less PPL's than there were 20 years ago, simple COST."
Actually I don't think costs have changed much relative to average wages ect. In fact I'd say it's probably cheaper now to learn to fly than it was back then ... especially if you take NPPL into account. It's the CPL route that has become far more expensive now the "self-improver" route has gone. Again ... I stand to be corrected. I think there are less PPL's because-
1) Their are far far more outdoor pursuits, facilities ect available these days and therefore flying has more competition to compete with for punters.
2) The fun aspect is often hidden to those just qualifying and many leave in ignorance of all the options available to spice up their flying. Flying clubs are becoming too "school like" and are geared to produce potential airline pilots not recreational pilots. All the old "characters" seem to have shuffled off or gone to fly cheaply from farm strips and all that are left at "clubs" are the wouldbe ATPL's talking gadgets and IFR.
SAS ... "Who is teaching is totally irrelevant. The current crop of FI's have CPL's, the last lot had BCPL's before that PPL's. So what. We all have hoops to jump through and this is just another one."
Exactly! ... So why were you arguing so hard that PPL instructors are pretty near useless?
SAS ... "Do you need a CPL to teach PPL's, no of course not and in theory I agree that the current system is daft if all you are going to teach is ab-initio PPL, but many instructors teach at a higher level, CPL and I/R for example. How are they to get the experience if there are loads of 'cheap' PPL instructors around?"
We are talking basic PPL here, obviously CPL/IR/ ect ect will require a more qualified instructor. As I said in a previous post, AFI wages have always been crap and in reality they probably always will be. It never stopped those who were dedicated enough before and it won't in the future.Those who are just using the FI as a hours building excercise will leave anyway so what's the difference. It just means those who stay to become senior instructors will be there as always ... because they want to be. Some of these command very good wages but I appreciate, not if compared to an equivelent airline job. Like I said this is a fact of life ... market forces and all that ... :-(
SAS ..."What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the whole licensing system and I don't feel it is likely or necessary."
Maybe ... but as you know it's been done many times in the last decade to all of our disgust ... at least if was to make improvements ? Of course if you were applying it just to the NPPL then it wouldn't require much change at all. In fact all you'd be doing is bringing it into line with say microlight NPPL and leveling the pitch.
SAS ... "If somebody wishes to risk their own neck by flying on a reduced medical, then thats fine by me, but taking a paying passenger who wouldn't be aware of the medical history of the pilot is totally a no-no. Class ones all round please."
Sounds very correct doesn't it? a bit like speed cameras ... "well you can't denigh you were speeding sir!" hmmmm ? Two points here, 1) If class 2 was good enough in the past why not now? and you can take passengers up with a class 2 so what's the difference? 2) Anybody can suffer incapacitation and ECG's ect can't predict them. Ok the older you are the higher the risk maybe, but how much risk is it? I don't recall many incapacited instrucors in the past and I bet the odd cases that have occurred have no common link such as age?
To turn the never ending "what's so bad about the way it works now" question on it's head ... What is SO good about it?
SS
If I can be permitted to address a few of your points SAS, please don't think I'm taking a pop at you. You arguments are quite representative of many of those who are happy(ish) with the present system so I'll use them as a simple reference point.
SAS ... "My annoyance is with the peculiarily British disease of looking back with fondness and forgetting how crap things really were. If there are problems with the current system, lets find them and fix them, rather than go through the enormous hassle and expense to change a system that is working currently."
No offence but as you have admitted you weren't involved back then ... how would you know it was crap? I was and I thought the system worked pretty well. It was only really changed because of the European (dis)harmonisation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
SAS ... "Why are there less PPL's than there were 20 years ago, simple COST."
Actually I don't think costs have changed much relative to average wages ect. In fact I'd say it's probably cheaper now to learn to fly than it was back then ... especially if you take NPPL into account. It's the CPL route that has become far more expensive now the "self-improver" route has gone. Again ... I stand to be corrected. I think there are less PPL's because-
1) Their are far far more outdoor pursuits, facilities ect available these days and therefore flying has more competition to compete with for punters.
2) The fun aspect is often hidden to those just qualifying and many leave in ignorance of all the options available to spice up their flying. Flying clubs are becoming too "school like" and are geared to produce potential airline pilots not recreational pilots. All the old "characters" seem to have shuffled off or gone to fly cheaply from farm strips and all that are left at "clubs" are the wouldbe ATPL's talking gadgets and IFR.
SAS ... "Who is teaching is totally irrelevant. The current crop of FI's have CPL's, the last lot had BCPL's before that PPL's. So what. We all have hoops to jump through and this is just another one."
Exactly! ... So why were you arguing so hard that PPL instructors are pretty near useless?
SAS ... "Do you need a CPL to teach PPL's, no of course not and in theory I agree that the current system is daft if all you are going to teach is ab-initio PPL, but many instructors teach at a higher level, CPL and I/R for example. How are they to get the experience if there are loads of 'cheap' PPL instructors around?"
We are talking basic PPL here, obviously CPL/IR/ ect ect will require a more qualified instructor. As I said in a previous post, AFI wages have always been crap and in reality they probably always will be. It never stopped those who were dedicated enough before and it won't in the future.Those who are just using the FI as a hours building excercise will leave anyway so what's the difference. It just means those who stay to become senior instructors will be there as always ... because they want to be. Some of these command very good wages but I appreciate, not if compared to an equivelent airline job. Like I said this is a fact of life ... market forces and all that ... :-(
SAS ..."What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the whole licensing system and I don't feel it is likely or necessary."
Maybe ... but as you know it's been done many times in the last decade to all of our disgust ... at least if was to make improvements ? Of course if you were applying it just to the NPPL then it wouldn't require much change at all. In fact all you'd be doing is bringing it into line with say microlight NPPL and leveling the pitch.
SAS ... "If somebody wishes to risk their own neck by flying on a reduced medical, then thats fine by me, but taking a paying passenger who wouldn't be aware of the medical history of the pilot is totally a no-no. Class ones all round please."
Sounds very correct doesn't it? a bit like speed cameras ... "well you can't denigh you were speeding sir!" hmmmm ? Two points here, 1) If class 2 was good enough in the past why not now? and you can take passengers up with a class 2 so what's the difference? 2) Anybody can suffer incapacitation and ECG's ect can't predict them. Ok the older you are the higher the risk maybe, but how much risk is it? I don't recall many incapacited instrucors in the past and I bet the odd cases that have occurred have no common link such as age?
To turn the never ending "what's so bad about the way it works now" question on it's head ... What is SO good about it?
SS
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NPPL etc
Yes, France is proposing it's own NPPL.
Once the airline market is on the up, it is now once again showing the signs of becoming so, the flying clubs will be back in a state of chaos. As grandfather Instructors continue to retire or be retired the availablity of Instructors to flying schools will be even worse than before.
The training industry cannot continue to be held ransom to the fickle surges and lolls of the commercial transport demands.
The training industry requires a stable instructor force in order to promote itself. The current system is too often at odds with that need.
Cost isn't everything as you say DFC and that is why I suggest that the Instructing training must be thorough and comprehensive. Accessibilty and relevance are the arguements. You complain that the old boys look back through rose tinted glasses and suffer from the we no best british desease and yet seem satisfied with the notion that one should accept a 'jump through hoops' mentality which i've always considered to be a symptum of the 'british desease'.
Get rid of the awkward and pretentious hoops and concentrate on required standards.
DATA does not support the arguement that the DVLC class 1/11 medical standards are risky, far from it. A 52 ton truck is more a hazard than our little GA aeroplanes. It is the lack of DATA that the aero medics have that makes the JAA medical so restrictive. The JAA medical is no more thorough than DVLC and is done without any knowledge of the candidates medical history. The DVLC medical is as thorough and set against the background of the patients FULL MEDICAL RECORDS. Think about that and then decide who you would like your grandmother to fly with.
Once the airline market is on the up, it is now once again showing the signs of becoming so, the flying clubs will be back in a state of chaos. As grandfather Instructors continue to retire or be retired the availablity of Instructors to flying schools will be even worse than before.
The training industry cannot continue to be held ransom to the fickle surges and lolls of the commercial transport demands.
The training industry requires a stable instructor force in order to promote itself. The current system is too often at odds with that need.
Cost isn't everything as you say DFC and that is why I suggest that the Instructing training must be thorough and comprehensive. Accessibilty and relevance are the arguements. You complain that the old boys look back through rose tinted glasses and suffer from the we no best british desease and yet seem satisfied with the notion that one should accept a 'jump through hoops' mentality which i've always considered to be a symptum of the 'british desease'.
Get rid of the awkward and pretentious hoops and concentrate on required standards.
DATA does not support the arguement that the DVLC class 1/11 medical standards are risky, far from it. A 52 ton truck is more a hazard than our little GA aeroplanes. It is the lack of DATA that the aero medics have that makes the JAA medical so restrictive. The JAA medical is no more thorough than DVLC and is done without any knowledge of the candidates medical history. The DVLC medical is as thorough and set against the background of the patients FULL MEDICAL RECORDS. Think about that and then decide who you would like your grandmother to fly with.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never said that the industry was 'crap' 20 years ago and to be honest trying to compare the two is spurious, so many things have changed from licensing to socio-political issues.
What is clear, is that as an industry we are too expensive, why, mostly due to interference from the Belgrano causing prices to rise because of complication and paperwork. Look at the cost of parts.
Bu**ering around and adding extra levels of complication into the licencing system just doesn't make sense. We all agree that the average PPL doesn't have the knowledge required to be an FI, so we need extra training. Why not just get a CPL, probably the same level of difficulty, time and cost and gives you so many more options than just teaching the PPL.
The market for this would be very small and probably hardly worth it compared with just doing a CPL. You can now do a CPL for 20K, thats only 8-10K more than a basic PPL. Yes an FI rating is more, but add in the 200 Hrs flying needed and you get up to 20K very easily. Where then is the advantage in getting a basic FI rating and no more, compared to getting a CPL and then having the option of flying bigger and better paying things?
Again I have never said that PPL's are useless, many are probably more competent than I am, but their knowledge and experience is not the same as mine. In this case age is irrelevant and experience is what counts. (I started instructing at the age of 22 and had to put up with a lot of age related problems, especially with middle aged men.)
The NPPL to me is an unmitigated disaster when judged against the ideals behind it. I don't know anybody who is training specifically for it unless they can't get a medical. As DFC mentioned in his excellent post, it has simply become a method for allowing people to get around medical problems.
If we want to change the licensing system, then we should do it properly and change the whole lot rather than doing it piecemeal.
This is why I don't see that it will ever be accepted by the CAA. G-KEST as you used to work for them, why didn't you propose this whilst all the JAR fun and games was going on rather than now because it inconviences you?
I don't need to make an argument about what is so good about the current system. If you want to change, you need to convince people like me with reasoned argument and proven data.
I can recall at least 3 incidents of incapacitated instructors over the years, but none since the class 1 requirement came out. Put it this way, would you be happy sending your children up with an instructor who had had a serious medical issue and cannot reach the highest standard of medical health available. I doubt it somehow.
The difference between taking a paying passenger and a friend up is that the pax is paying for the priveledge, have no prior knowledge of the instructor and are trusting that they will be safe.
It is all about duty of care. Unless somebody has the highest medical, then I would not use them to take punters up. Simple as that. I don't care a fig about the sensibilties of someone who has lost a medical compared to the responsibility we have when taking students up. An airline wouldn't accept shonky standards, so why should we, after all we are in the same business really.
The industry is in trouble because of cost, shoddy facilities and manky a/c. Until we change that, then we can tinker about with who can teach what all we like, but eventually GA will die in this country. Sort out the major issues first before wasting our time with daft proposals like allowing an NPPL to teach.
I don't want to get into personal mud-slinging either, but I want to understand where the opposite view point is coming from.
What is clear, is that as an industry we are too expensive, why, mostly due to interference from the Belgrano causing prices to rise because of complication and paperwork. Look at the cost of parts.
Bu**ering around and adding extra levels of complication into the licencing system just doesn't make sense. We all agree that the average PPL doesn't have the knowledge required to be an FI, so we need extra training. Why not just get a CPL, probably the same level of difficulty, time and cost and gives you so many more options than just teaching the PPL.
The market for this would be very small and probably hardly worth it compared with just doing a CPL. You can now do a CPL for 20K, thats only 8-10K more than a basic PPL. Yes an FI rating is more, but add in the 200 Hrs flying needed and you get up to 20K very easily. Where then is the advantage in getting a basic FI rating and no more, compared to getting a CPL and then having the option of flying bigger and better paying things?
Again I have never said that PPL's are useless, many are probably more competent than I am, but their knowledge and experience is not the same as mine. In this case age is irrelevant and experience is what counts. (I started instructing at the age of 22 and had to put up with a lot of age related problems, especially with middle aged men.)
The NPPL to me is an unmitigated disaster when judged against the ideals behind it. I don't know anybody who is training specifically for it unless they can't get a medical. As DFC mentioned in his excellent post, it has simply become a method for allowing people to get around medical problems.
If we want to change the licensing system, then we should do it properly and change the whole lot rather than doing it piecemeal.
This is why I don't see that it will ever be accepted by the CAA. G-KEST as you used to work for them, why didn't you propose this whilst all the JAR fun and games was going on rather than now because it inconviences you?
I don't need to make an argument about what is so good about the current system. If you want to change, you need to convince people like me with reasoned argument and proven data.
I can recall at least 3 incidents of incapacitated instructors over the years, but none since the class 1 requirement came out. Put it this way, would you be happy sending your children up with an instructor who had had a serious medical issue and cannot reach the highest standard of medical health available. I doubt it somehow.
The difference between taking a paying passenger and a friend up is that the pax is paying for the priveledge, have no prior knowledge of the instructor and are trusting that they will be safe.
It is all about duty of care. Unless somebody has the highest medical, then I would not use them to take punters up. Simple as that. I don't care a fig about the sensibilties of someone who has lost a medical compared to the responsibility we have when taking students up. An airline wouldn't accept shonky standards, so why should we, after all we are in the same business really.
The industry is in trouble because of cost, shoddy facilities and manky a/c. Until we change that, then we can tinker about with who can teach what all we like, but eventually GA will die in this country. Sort out the major issues first before wasting our time with daft proposals like allowing an NPPL to teach.
I don't want to get into personal mud-slinging either, but I want to understand where the opposite view point is coming from.
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
SAS -
Do you really think everyone who works for the CAA-SRG agrees with everything that is proposed? If so you could not be more mistaken. There is a robust internal consultation process which allows comment from a wide selection of highly experienced folk. It does happen to be a process where, even if you do have an excellent contra viewpoint, you do not always win your argument. There were many contra views expressed prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL but our arguments did not win the day. We are now reaping the bitter benefits in the case of private, sporting and recreational aviation in the UK. Only the introduction of the NPPL system allows us to influence matters within this country. hope you eventually come round to the views expressed by so many on other forums and quite a few on this one.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Do you really think everyone who works for the CAA-SRG agrees with everything that is proposed? If so you could not be more mistaken. There is a robust internal consultation process which allows comment from a wide selection of highly experienced folk. It does happen to be a process where, even if you do have an excellent contra viewpoint, you do not always win your argument. There were many contra views expressed prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL but our arguments did not win the day. We are now reaping the bitter benefits in the case of private, sporting and recreational aviation in the UK. Only the introduction of the NPPL system allows us to influence matters within this country. hope you eventually come round to the views expressed by so many on other forums and quite a few on this one.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There hasn't so far been a single convincing statement, demonstrating that the current system for producing instructors is detrimental to the market that it serves.
All that has been stated is that it is (a) Too expensive, (b) Class 1 medical is unnecessary and (c) The CPL requirement is irrelevant
Even if all of these were true, it still does not say anything about how the system adversely affects the market concerned.
The only criticism I have about it is that there isn't any provision in the FI course for teaching the many different types of personalities that a fresh FI will encounter. That would make a lot of difference in winning over more people who "walk through the door".
As for Trial Lessons being a disguised AOC operation: I firmly believe that it is inadvertent in that it largely attracts "victims" of gifts given by friends and family whilst a small percentage are the genuine 1st step to a PPL.
The business of motivation and encouragement after the PPL is missing in most "school" types of operation. This is what can and should be changed so that new PPLs know what is possible with their new PPL.
The cost is significant to most people and oddly a surprise to some when they complete their PPL and struggle to keep current.
This is a difficult one in that it takes a very honest FTO to tell someone that they should also realise how much it will cost to maintain their PPL.
All that has been stated is that it is (a) Too expensive, (b) Class 1 medical is unnecessary and (c) The CPL requirement is irrelevant
Even if all of these were true, it still does not say anything about how the system adversely affects the market concerned.
The only criticism I have about it is that there isn't any provision in the FI course for teaching the many different types of personalities that a fresh FI will encounter. That would make a lot of difference in winning over more people who "walk through the door".
As for Trial Lessons being a disguised AOC operation: I firmly believe that it is inadvertent in that it largely attracts "victims" of gifts given by friends and family whilst a small percentage are the genuine 1st step to a PPL.
The business of motivation and encouragement after the PPL is missing in most "school" types of operation. This is what can and should be changed so that new PPLs know what is possible with their new PPL.
The cost is significant to most people and oddly a surprise to some when they complete their PPL and struggle to keep current.
This is a difficult one in that it takes a very honest FTO to tell someone that they should also realise how much it will cost to maintain their PPL.
Last edited by walkingthewalk; 16th Feb 2004 at 22:55.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
Sorry to pick on you again but I do find what you say a bit inflamitory. Not your case you understand, but your seemingly arrogant attitude to anyone without a CPL, as if all there experience counts for nothing?
I'm not trying to mud sling but you really do seem to be failing to see where the opposite view is coming from ... perhaps you just don't want to see? OK, Perhaps it's me and the way I argue the case, so I'll say it again ... errrr no I won't use your phrase
£20k for CPL then an £5K for an FIR when you have no ambition to go on to fly airliners makes no sense what so ever!
There is a wealth of experience out there going to waste and it is this experience and depth of knowledge that is needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying in this country. OK I suppose if you want to consider "group A" as just an introduction to the "industry" then your approach is fine and all recreational flying should be confined to microlights and gliders ... but NO!
You harp on about your experience and knowledge and how different it is to that of an average PPL ... but what are we talking about here when we say average PPL? There are PPL's out there who've built aeroplanes, won aerobatic comps, flown around the world ect ... I'm talking about the PPL with much experience (probably a lot more than you) and a depth of knowledge that is just as relevent as yours ... maybe even more so! Perhaps someone who wants to put something back into a "sport" they love ... (it's not just an industry to some). I'm sorry if this sounds a tad romantic but it's true ... when will you understand we don't all aspire to be ATPL's but do aspire to pass on our skills to the next generation of flyers.
Yes private flying may die in this country but only if those who want nothing but commercial aeroplanes and (p)roffessional pilots get their way. The NPPL may not be the answer (I never said it was) but at least it is a licence that we may have some control over and not just one that has to abide by our ever-so efficient European politics.
I've tried to give reasoned debate as to why "experienced" PPL's are just as capable of instrution as those with CPL "experience". I've tried to say why I think at lower levels the PPL instructor may bring some of the more general aviation spirit back ... But, I'm afraid your argument and obvious vanity is getting more and more like that old "Frost report" sketch ... you know the one with John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbet. Let me remind you ...
John Cleese (high class "read ATPL") looks down at Ronnie Barker (middle class "read CPL") and says "I'm superior to you and look down on you". Ronnie Barker looks up at John Cleese and says "I am inferior to you and look up to you" He then looks down at Ronnie Corbet (working class "read PPL") and says "but I'm superior to you and look down at you" ... Ronnie Corbet looks up at Ronnie Barker and says "I know my place"!
Perhaps as a PPL I should know mine ... but I have no class!
SS
Sorry to pick on you again but I do find what you say a bit inflamitory. Not your case you understand, but your seemingly arrogant attitude to anyone without a CPL, as if all there experience counts for nothing?
I'm not trying to mud sling but you really do seem to be failing to see where the opposite view is coming from ... perhaps you just don't want to see? OK, Perhaps it's me and the way I argue the case, so I'll say it again ... errrr no I won't use your phrase
£20k for CPL then an £5K for an FIR when you have no ambition to go on to fly airliners makes no sense what so ever!
There is a wealth of experience out there going to waste and it is this experience and depth of knowledge that is needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying in this country. OK I suppose if you want to consider "group A" as just an introduction to the "industry" then your approach is fine and all recreational flying should be confined to microlights and gliders ... but NO!
You harp on about your experience and knowledge and how different it is to that of an average PPL ... but what are we talking about here when we say average PPL? There are PPL's out there who've built aeroplanes, won aerobatic comps, flown around the world ect ... I'm talking about the PPL with much experience (probably a lot more than you) and a depth of knowledge that is just as relevent as yours ... maybe even more so! Perhaps someone who wants to put something back into a "sport" they love ... (it's not just an industry to some). I'm sorry if this sounds a tad romantic but it's true ... when will you understand we don't all aspire to be ATPL's but do aspire to pass on our skills to the next generation of flyers.
Yes private flying may die in this country but only if those who want nothing but commercial aeroplanes and (p)roffessional pilots get their way. The NPPL may not be the answer (I never said it was) but at least it is a licence that we may have some control over and not just one that has to abide by our ever-so efficient European politics.
I've tried to give reasoned debate as to why "experienced" PPL's are just as capable of instrution as those with CPL "experience". I've tried to say why I think at lower levels the PPL instructor may bring some of the more general aviation spirit back ... But, I'm afraid your argument and obvious vanity is getting more and more like that old "Frost report" sketch ... you know the one with John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbet. Let me remind you ...
John Cleese (high class "read ATPL") looks down at Ronnie Barker (middle class "read CPL") and says "I'm superior to you and look down on you". Ronnie Barker looks up at John Cleese and says "I am inferior to you and look up to you" He then looks down at Ronnie Corbet (working class "read PPL") and says "but I'm superior to you and look down at you" ... Ronnie Corbet looks up at Ronnie Barker and says "I know my place"!
Perhaps as a PPL I should know mine ... but I have no class!
SS
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
short stripper:
Re. "There is a wealth of experience out there going to waste and it is this experience and depth of knowledge that is needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying in this country."
You need to explain why the experience is going to waste.
Also, the notion of this experience being needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying needs explaining.
Is there a chance of "recreational" flying being a subjective concept or could one assert that it means the same to all?
Re. "There is a wealth of experience out there going to waste and it is this experience and depth of knowledge that is needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying in this country."
You need to explain why the experience is going to waste.
Also, the notion of this experience being needed to breathe life back into "recreational group A" flying needs explaining.
Is there a chance of "recreational" flying being a subjective concept or could one assert that it means the same to all?