Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders

[walkingthewalk]

short stripper:

Re. "The mentor idea is OK but the AOPA one is basically just a talking shop ..."

I suggest that you take a closer look at the US AOPA Mentor programme. Perhaps you can illustrate what makes it a talking shop.

[shortstripper]

WIW

"But this is surely exclusive (to the PFA). Any existing CPL/FIs (unrestricted) cannot it seems be CRIs."



I don't think there's any reason a CPL/FI (restricted or unrestricted) can't be a CRI. You'd have to be a PFA member and have a sensible amount experience on type, ie taildragger ... that's all.

SS

WIW

I coudn't see anything on the site that advocated that those mentor PPL's play any part in actual hands on training? It looks more like they are asking you to take a perspective PPL, student or whatever under your wing to encourage them, answer their questions ect ect. All very good, but like I say ... don't most pilots do that anyway but without the hype?

I might have missed something on the website about actually taking those fledglings up with you ... if I have then I'm mistaken and I apologise. However, I'd personally prefer to be there from the start in a more proactive role.

SS

[walkingthewalk]

SS:

Yes, the idea is to take a prospective PPL "under ones wing"
and to mentor them from the perspective of an experienced
pilot,Just like the "old" instructors who cannot qualify to instruct any longer under the new rules (medical etc.).

There is no hype - just good old passion for flying and wanting to give something back.

Yes, you can be there from the start, in a proactive role.

So, there we are all the benefits of getting involved in a real way, without being "conferred" the title of instructor BUT giving that "boost of enthusiasm" back to PPL training that some would say is missing

I invite you to discuss why this system would not encourage all those "old timers" back into involvement with PPL training.

[shortstripper]

Well simple really .. they don't get to fly with them.

I don't mean it from a selfish, "I want to fly but not pay for it angle" (PFA homebuilt is cheap enough for that) I mean I want to actually show what I mean ... not just talk about it.

I know that right from the start when I was learning to glide, an on, the biggest influences on the way I fly and what I've learned was by those who actually taught me. I've had plenty of "advise" from well meaning individuals but until you fly with somebody and realise what they have said actually works in practice (by demonstration) you can't always believe them.

SS

[walkingthewalk]

SS:

This is just not going to happen unless you convince the regulating authorities that things are in need of change. So far the argument for change doesn't appear very convincing:

1) Make it cheaper
2) Reduce standards for medical fitness
3) Make it more relevant

Why should the CAA make it cheaper - you need to convince them.

Why should the CAA accept Trial Flights carried out with a reduced medical standards - how could they handle the media frenzy if there was a fatal accident involving such a flight.

"Relevant to what ?" you will be asked. The syllabus contains all the basic elements required to attain a PPL.
Any enhancement of what is observed to be inadequate can only increase the cost to the PPL attainment (Catch 22).

Mentoring:
There is nothing stopping anyone from enjoying a flight in their J3 with a fellow pre-PPL just to show them what "real flying" is all about. The joys of strip flying, the marvel of stop-watch and map navigation etc. etc. It would not cost them a penny since the seat would be spare anyway.

[shortstripper]

Perhaps you feel the same about me ... but I feel that when presenting the case to those of you who don't like the idea, I might as well bang my head against a brick wall!

The CAA have no interest in costs other than how much they can charge for a licence.

Only market forces and a reduction in direct costs will make learning to fly cheaper. This probably won't happen but might if training from unlicenced airfields by volunteers is allowed?

Medical standards are already "lower" for microlights or gliders. They can give trial flights ... so tell me how the position for GA is different if we are talking same licence (NPPL)? Double standards? The media could have a field day there as well then surely?

The last bit about relevence is subjective and was more aimed at the later arguments of how to try and breathe new life into our clubs. Of course at the CAA level all they want to know is that students learn to fly to a required standard. It is up to us all as "flyers" and not just "pilots" to want to encourage those new entrants to enjoy their new found talents to the full. A new PPL will soon become bored flying the local area in a spamcan if he/she doesn't want to follow the ratings path many of his/her instructors advocate through lack of awareness of the wider picture.

Mentoring .... nope you're quite right, but like I say it's your tutor who really influences your perspective on things .... and we all like to be influentual!

SS

[G-KEST]

Some great submissions and the weight now seems to be on the side of change on the lines of my proposals written for the PFA and now with the NPPL steering group. Delaying tactics are being used to put back the next meeting of the SG which is now scheduled for the end of March - it was to have been late January. Some organisations are playing a dangerous political game and the folk out there just waiting for a lower cost NPPL(SEP) will not forget the procrastination. Perhaps the PFA will see a significant rise in membership at the expense of AOPA? For some "urgency" is a word unknown in the English language - more tea vicar???
Cheers,
Trapper 69

[Say again s l o w l y]

G-KEST, The take up of new NPPL students has been virtually zero, the only people who have taken advantage of it are people who cannot get a class 2 medical. There isn't anybody 'waiting' for a low cost NPPL, simply because doing any licence in 32 Hrs just isn't feasible.

Most people take around 60hrs to get a licence so why go for an NPPL? The cost is virtually the same, since the a/c hire costs are the same.

The difference between medicals and licencing requirements between the different forms of flying is ridiculous.

'New life' does need to be breathed into GA, I just don't think that these proposals have any chance of delivering that.

[lady in red]

A lot of what has been said here makes a lot of sense. But I am not a Roedean Girl!! Far from it!!
I do believe that we have to have measures to assess ability and performance. Tick tests show nothing at all. I think there is a lot of nonsense promulgated about the CPL and ATPL exms. yes, I agree that they are largely irrelevant to the instructor and the reason I can say that is that I have passed them. First CPL and then the ATPL upgrade and that is why it is a load of nonsense. All the people who had tried to put me off taking the exams were sensationalists as they were not in the slightest bit difficult and I got pretty good marks with only two weeks' work.
It is for that reason that I think that a good basic education is essential. The only people I have encountered who found the groundschool hard were those who did not have any basic qualifications.

Any kind of studying is something that is learned young and as an instructor you harness the inate ability of a person to learn. If someone has never studied then you have a bigger challenge and that is half the satisfaction of instructing. I would far rather teach the older less qualified student than the youngster who presents no challenge because he learns so quickly. Same with training instructors. One of my early instuctor students was nearly 60 and only had a PPL (having passed the CPL knowledge) and he was far harder to teach than any of the younger ones with frozen ATPLs but a great challenge.

What I want to see more than anything else is a raising of standards not an erosion of them, plus a standardisation of training so that eveyone gets a better deal. At present the range of standards is far to wide to be fair and some people are really missing out. What we need is a Central Flying Instructor Training school run by the best FIC instructors and that would be the only place that could train instructors.

[G-KEST]

Lady in Red,
Always did think that ladies were pricey and if red was there colour - even more expensive which is why I have been maried to a brunette for some 38 years. Your ideas are utopian and would escalate the FIC cost out of sight - are you really serious. When I was appointed an FIE back in the dark ages of 1972 I thought I really ought to get some formal teaching qualification despite having been a fairly effective instructor for 12 years plus an extra two in gliding. I looked at what might be available and settled for the City and Guilds Further Education Teachers certificate course done on a part time evening basis at a venue some 10 miles from home. It lasted for around 36 weeks - one evening a week plus homework and at the end I was assessed by an evaluator in my ability to teach while I conducted part of an FIC for three potential AFI's. I passed with distinction and really learned a lot from it since vocational FE teaching covers a far wider age spectrum than education of the 5 to 18 age group. That course is still available right round the country and I do feel it should be mandatory for those who wish to gain FIC approval. It is not expensive - mine cost £150 some 30 years ago and well worth it. If you are interested why not give your local FE college a call to see if they do it and what the current cost is.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - I do see red sometimes but always doff my bonedome to the fair sex.

[walkingthewalk]

"...folk out there just waiting for a lower cost NPPL(SEP) ..."


Where are these folk I wonder. In the past year only a single NPPL trainee has materialised at a local FTO and that person happens to be an "expired CAA PPL" who just wants to "save" money on the medical. They will have to complete the same flying tests NFT/GFT GST etc. when they are deemed ready for test.

It would be interesting to see the data that G-KEST has on the number of people just itching to start NPPL training and why ***exactly*** they are not doing it now.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Lady in Red has come up with a very good idea, one that does merit further discussion.

Flying needs to get MORE professional not less. People are put off by the 1950's a/c and 2004 prices. Why would you pay over £100/hr for a machine that compared to a modern car is as antiquated as a square rig sailing ship compared to an aircraft carrier?

Ideas and individuals such as a certain poster here are the very reason the industry is in deep s**t. No investment, no new technology and kafkaesque beauracracy have stifled the GA scene. Turning back the clock will just start the downward cycle again, but this time with an even worse consequences for us all. We need to look forward, not back into the dark ages, with all due respect it is pilots such as myself (age 26) who are the future of the industry, NOT people in their 60's. We will have to deal with the consequences of any decisions that may fundamentally change the GA scene.

If we look at other industries that attact similar type of customer (sailing for example), people are willing to spend vast sums on their 'lifestyle'. Flying is no longer a lifestyle activity and has become a hobby populated by the terminally obsessed to whom money is less of a barrier. It doesn't have any draw for the average person, why is it that the vast majority of new PPL students fall into two categories- wanabee Commercial pilots and dinner party pilots? (those who fly not for the love of it, but for the kudos they think it will bestow.)

The numbers of enthusiasts is dropping, but that is mainly because they have been priced out of the market somewhat. How can we drag in young enthusiasts when there is no way most can afford to do it?

G-KEST you have not answered any of the criticism or refuted any of the very valid points that have been raised by many people here. Get your facts and figures here to show us and could you please explain EXACTLY how your propsals are likely to change the major problems that we face CURRENTLY, specifically the issue of cost base.

The £150 that it cost to do a formal teaching qualification has grown to be higher than the cost of getting a FI(R). The idea of doing a 36 week course is again not sensible. For some people it may be of benefit, but at what cost and it would just put even more people off getting into instructing.

Let's have some common sense here, we start off with a proposal to reduce the cost of getting an FI rating and reduce the cost of flying overall and then the same person then advocates doing a multi-thousand pound course???? Am I missing something?

Actually I am not sure if the course still exists, formal teaching qualifications have changed hugely over the last few years.

[Whirlybird]

What it's really like out there.

I learned to fly (f/w) at a school where most people seemed to be there for the three week courses and then the airlines. Most of the instructors seemed a little unsure even about crossing the channel, never mind any real long distance stuff. Short strips? When, as a newish PPL, I asked a group of pilots and instructors for hints about landing on grass, NONE OF THEM HAD EVER DONE SO!!! And no-one mentioned that maybe it wasn't so great an idea for a new PPL to fly into Derby's 500 metres with obstacles at both ends when the grass was wet and there was no headwind, though I managed OK....well, probably didn't know, did they? Taildraggers? I asked about those, and everyone looked blank. So after a year or so and wanting a new challenge, and not really fancying an IMC, I found helicopters, and they all wondered why. And when I said they were a bit expensive, but I liked rotary flying, and did anyone know about gyroplanes...woohoo, you'd think I'd asked about piloting Leonardo da Vinci's first aircraft design, the reactions I got! As for microlights, which I considered at one point, you'd think every other microlight pilot had engine failure on every flight, the way they're considered. So I tried all these, and decided to do what I did, but I'm glad of the experience. And I went to other clubs and schools, who all have instructors who are equally inexperienced in the wider scheme of things, and not keen to impart their knowledge of them even if they have any in case the student goes away.

My experiences are fairly typical. I could have given up these ideas, but I found out about these things myself. But my point is, we need a place in the schools for the real flying enthusiasts, who have so much to pass on, that the average FI at present simply doesn't. Yes, they could pass all the CPL exams, but why should they? And they're not going to hang around and just mentor (ie chat), they want to instruct. And it's not that these people need the schools, since they're flying anyway. it's that GA needs them!!!!

[lady in red]

I am sure it has been said here or on other fora, but the number of NPPL new licence issues for ab initio has amounted to approx 60 out of a total of 1800 odd. That surely shows that there is not a great rush of youngsters desperate for a cheap licence and as others have pointed out, the majority of NPPL seekers are the older, medically compromised, trying to get back into their hobby.

In order to attract the youngsters in you will have to make flying more exciting and thrilling than it currently seems - they are put off by the prospect of studying for 7 exams and most of the training aeroplanes are less exciting than an ancient Morris Minor. I have found that the youngsters are the thrill seekers who are going for the 30 minute aerobatic trial lessons rather than the conventional sort these days. And I did manage to convert one to learning to fly, but normally they prefer to go and do more aeros in a Pitts or glamorous aerobatic type after experiencing the basics in an Aerobat.

In view of this where is the need for the NPPL instructor??

[Whirlybird]

Don't any of you ever tell prospective students on trial lessons what they can do with a PPL? I tell mine they can hire a helicopter and land with a friend at a hotel (in front of an admiring crowd) and have lunch, then fly back again, for the price of a day trip to France. I tell them they can go land in a friend's field or large garden at the weekend, and only pay for the actual flying time. OK, f/w pilots can't do those things, but do you ever tell them they can buy an aircraft share, and go touring on the continent? Or fly themselves to France for lunch. Or go and fly in the US, or Oz, or South Africa. Or air race, or enter the Dawn to Dusk and fly flat out all day, or enter some of the European air rallies. Or even graduate to that flash looking modern twin, once they've got a PPL. Or....how do I know; I'm a helicopter pilot, but there must be loads more.

Don't you ever tell people how exciting flying can be? Or is it that you've all spent so long trying to pass all the exams, and then make a living out of flying, that you can't even remember, or never knew?

[BEagle]

G-KEST - you are being very economic with the truth when you say that your proposals are being supported by most people. They are not, if this thread is anything to go by.

Turning back the clock is not always the right answer. In fact it's rarely ever the right answer.

The papers you put forward are not being subject to what you claim to be 'delaying tactics' and your rant about urgency is merely alienating you from the support which you might otherwise receive. The NPPL P&SC meeting date had to be changed in order that everyone could make it - and the change of date will give more time for your ideas to be considered.

However, there are plenty of current FIs around looking for jobs as it is; I fail to see any 'urgent' need to add to their numbers.

[walkingthewalk]

Whirly:

I have no doubt that ALL instructors talk about those things during a Trial flight (TF).

However, I don't think that the TF conversion rate (to PPL training) is an accurate pointer to any reluctance for learning to fly.

The reason IMHO is that that most people can afford the half hour cost of a TF as a present/a treat or whatever but they cannot necessarily afford the whole course or indeed may not have the life style that could accomodate it.

I think that the more useful pointer could be the numbers giving up after starting a course and more importantly those that give up AFTER gaining their PPL. If this group can be encouraged and accomodated more by the infrastructure of private flying then that would improve things.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Whirly, why should people know about other forms of aviation than their own? How many purely rotary pilots know much about fixed wing flying and especially gyro's. I fly both F/W and Rotary, the 2 skills are different and are often not complimentary.

With the safety record of gyro's, you wouldn't catch me going near them. I don't know a huge amount about microlights either not being involved in them. Does that make me a 'bad' instructor? No. A wide range of experience is fine, but it is not a pre-requisite to being a good instructor.

Ther is always a bit of rivalry between F/W, Rotary, microlighting etc. Planks, Angry palmtrees, paper aeroplanes. We all have derogatry comments for things we don't understand. If somebody wants to try something else, then go for it, but don't expect someone who knows nothing about a subject to be much use to you, to be honest, what do you expect?

Very few people have experience in all sectors of the industry, especially instructors, as they are usually skint and simply haven't got the time to go and jump into other things. I don't fly just for pleasure anymore and very rarely get to fly many 'interesting' types. I love it when I get the chance, but that isn't very often unfortunately.

When you went off to Derby, you had a licence. Therefore as PIC the decision to go was up to you. If you felt unsure, you shouldn't have gone anywhere near the place. You cannot blame an instructor for decisions you make as a licenced pilot. We can advise you but at the end of the day it is up to you. If I break an a/c, I can't blame anybody but myself, I certainly can't start having a go at my instructors from years ago.
How would you like it if in 3 years time a student of yours hurt themselves in a heli and then slapped a courtcase on you because they felt you 'missed' something during training? The simple fact is that an instructors responsibilty is removed once the test is passed.
Will we still try and guide you and keep you safe? Of course, we don't want anybody to hurt themselves, but cutting someone loose is the point of getting a licence. Do they still need supervision, yes, but we cannot enforce anything on somebody if they are unwilling to accept it.

[walkingthewalk]

BEagle:

From what I have read so far, it appears that G-KEST and some others are advocating a "change of type" of instructor.

It appears that from a certain point of view, there isn't any enthusiasm demonstrated by instructors and this is putting people off ?!??!

Without wishing to change the subject, nobody has so far touched on the potential for eveb MORE high-tech knowledge being required by more and more standard training a/c manufacturers producing almost "all glass" cockpits.

[shortstripper]

Sighs deeply and shakes his head in despair!

Ok here we go again as for the umpteenth time the point has been lost.

We now have a new licence in this country called the NPPL … it’s not perfect but it’s here and that obviously bugs some people. It hasn’t had much of a take up at SEP level for the reasons SAS has stated. Why should it? The SEP part is far too unequal to the other parts, ie TMG and Microlights. Why are they so popular and increasing in popularity? Simple, they are cheap and they are fun. The BGA and BMAA are stuffed full of voluntary instructors and enthusiasts who are there for the love of the sport and they can train from unlicensed airfields. If SEP at NPPL level could work at the same level it too would see an increase in popularity. Costs could be reduced quite significantly if training was allowed away from expensive airports with their high landing fee’s and hangarage. Voluntary PPL instructors could be used to further reduce costs and hey presto we have a “sport” licence that would work. This wouldn’t take any great change in licensing, it’s just a matter of bringing NPPL SEP into line with the other NPPL categories.

Is anyone seriously suggesting the above isn’t at least a reasonable idea worth debate? Shiny new aeroplanes are very nice but will only result in even higher prices and will do nothing to attract anyone but those with commercial aspirations?

If any of you really think the majority of PPL’s fall into the two categories SAS describes and the latter are only there for the kudos then you really have missed out somewhere. I’d suggest that you go to a few more fly-ins or perhaps to the PFA rally. Undoubtedly there are some like that, but the same can be said of many chasing the coveted left hand seat of a 747.

Lady in Red, Your idea of a central instructor school is interesting but unrealistic. For a start … bang would go more of the work coming into the struggling flying schools and so too would the work for those higher qualified instructors who teach instructors. All this talk of minimum educational qualifications is daft. It will just put the barriers up to more and more potential CPL’s The cost and effort already involved is enough of a hurdle to ensure the floodgates aren’t opened to all. As someone with a degree, a lifelong interest in aviation and light engineering I’m certainly not frightened of the exams. However, I know from experience that there are many out there with no formal qualifications who would run rings around many very high qualified graduates. I’m sure the CPL exams in themselves they are not the main hurdle for others like me … it’s more the cost and time involved now that you are required to do attend minimum hours of ground school. Fine if you want to become an airline pilot … but too instruct at basic level? I just don’t buy it.

It’s funny that someone who insists that standards need to be raised to bring in new life, then goes on to compare aviation to sailing. You need no formal qualification to sail a boat. You can buy one for the cost of obtaining your PPL and you can use wind or red diesel to propel yourself. The costs are far lower, you don’t have to pay potential super tanker captains to patronise you and you can have a lot of fun. If you want to blow a fortune on a plush yacht you can … but you can easily start very cheaply indeed.

I’m not sure if the “certain poster” is me? … If it is, then I don’t care if you do think I’m harking back to past times. I don’t think I am! I just think that often the only way to move forward is to look back and learn. I’d love to see more investment, perhaps a softer tone by the CAA on allowing new aircraft design in and other forward moving steps. However, don’t dismiss how things worked in the past, and don’t forget that a retreat often wins a war!

SS