Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
short strip:
Let's imagine that what you are hoping for is accepted by the regulating authorities. What resistance do you envisage from nearby home owners when the "explosion" of new NPPL training strips arrives.
Let's imagine that what you are hoping for is accepted by the regulating authorities. What resistance do you envisage from nearby home owners when the "explosion" of new NPPL training strips arrives.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What explosion? ... There are plenty of unlicenced airstrips being used by the microlight fratenity. I'm not talking airstrips without planning permission here ... just unlicenced ones. Some of us are happy to co-exist with other forms of aviation all on the same site.
SS
SS
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I think we have finally arrived at a clear definition of what the regulating authorities are to consider:
1) Allow NPPL training in SEL a/c beyond the weight limits of
microlights from unlicensed airstrips.
2) Allow such training to be carried out by a new class of
instructor, just like those operating within the BGA system.
3) Prevent such instructors as in (3) from charging any fees
and promote volunteer instruction - to keep costs down.
Am I right that there is also to be no minimum standard for these NPPL FTO premises - to keep costs down.
Am I also right that when a given NPPL holder who has trained at such a facility will not require any training in operations at full ATC airports.
1) Allow NPPL training in SEL a/c beyond the weight limits of
microlights from unlicensed airstrips.
2) Allow such training to be carried out by a new class of
instructor, just like those operating within the BGA system.
3) Prevent such instructors as in (3) from charging any fees
and promote volunteer instruction - to keep costs down.
Am I right that there is also to be no minimum standard for these NPPL FTO premises - to keep costs down.
Am I also right that when a given NPPL holder who has trained at such a facility will not require any training in operations at full ATC airports.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS, the 'certain' poster is not you.
Why are microlights popular? Cost. In comparison the machines themselves are dirt cheap to buy, own and run. Microlight instructors actually get paid far more than your average PPL instructor, yet the per-hour cost is much less.
I don't believe anybody should work for free, it raises too many problems, for example places like Duxford have found that using volunteers causes more problems than it is worth. You can't ask a volunteer to do tasks that they won't enjoy and if you do they can easily say no and walk away.
Sailing is something that is as close to me as aviation and the two draw some very close parallels. Yes you can do it for relatively little money, but most people spend a large amount of money, especially where Yachts are involved. No you don't need a licence as such, but most people do take courses such as Day skipper and Yacht master as well as the RYA levels for dinghy sailing.
You don't agree that PPL's often fall into 2 categories, fine, but this has come from being around various school for a few years. The cost is now high enough that the demographics of people coming through the door is not very varied. Look at the average school/club and the vast majority are middle aged men earning £40K plus. Not many obsessed teenagers unless their parents are very wealthy.
Is that healthy for an industry? No. We need as wide a range of people as possible; men, women, kids, pensioners etc......
Why are microlights popular? Cost. In comparison the machines themselves are dirt cheap to buy, own and run. Microlight instructors actually get paid far more than your average PPL instructor, yet the per-hour cost is much less.
I don't believe anybody should work for free, it raises too many problems, for example places like Duxford have found that using volunteers causes more problems than it is worth. You can't ask a volunteer to do tasks that they won't enjoy and if you do they can easily say no and walk away.
Sailing is something that is as close to me as aviation and the two draw some very close parallels. Yes you can do it for relatively little money, but most people spend a large amount of money, especially where Yachts are involved. No you don't need a licence as such, but most people do take courses such as Day skipper and Yacht master as well as the RYA levels for dinghy sailing.
You don't agree that PPL's often fall into 2 categories, fine, but this has come from being around various school for a few years. The cost is now high enough that the demographics of people coming through the door is not very varied. Look at the average school/club and the vast majority are middle aged men earning £40K plus. Not many obsessed teenagers unless their parents are very wealthy.
Is that healthy for an industry? No. We need as wide a range of people as possible; men, women, kids, pensioners etc......
Last edited by Say again s l o w l y; 18th Feb 2004 at 18:35.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIW
Pretty well summarised although the instructor class is not exactly "new" but more an old class resurrected. I suppose it could be a paid class of instructor if just at NPPL level to bring it into line with microlights … but I prefer the BGA volunteer style.
No the airfields used would be just as microlights use … with a bit of common sense applied to cover the different performance requirements.
As for training to ATC standards … Microlighters manage OK don’t they? and of course you still need to pass a radio licence to use one.
SAS
Cost … Like I said this is mostly because of the need to operate from licenced airfields. Fuel prices ect, we are pretty well stuck with, although diesel engines may help. Your idea of new aircraft would be OK if the CAA were to allow some of the new futuristic designs to be more easily granted CofA’s or allow permit aircraft to be used for NPPL training.
Your observation on the PPL candidates is very broadly based on your own experiences. Ever been to a microlight or gliding club? There are loads of old farts too … but also a very healthy smattering of youth … and not all rich kids (not that there’s anything wrong with them either)
I worked as a professional fisherman with my father for a couple of years out of St Ives in Cornwall … I’ve seen many of those RYA yacht masters … Oh yes!
SS
Pretty well summarised although the instructor class is not exactly "new" but more an old class resurrected. I suppose it could be a paid class of instructor if just at NPPL level to bring it into line with microlights … but I prefer the BGA volunteer style.
No the airfields used would be just as microlights use … with a bit of common sense applied to cover the different performance requirements.
As for training to ATC standards … Microlighters manage OK don’t they? and of course you still need to pass a radio licence to use one.
SAS
Cost … Like I said this is mostly because of the need to operate from licenced airfields. Fuel prices ect, we are pretty well stuck with, although diesel engines may help. Your idea of new aircraft would be OK if the CAA were to allow some of the new futuristic designs to be more easily granted CofA’s or allow permit aircraft to be used for NPPL training.
Your observation on the PPL candidates is very broadly based on your own experiences. Ever been to a microlight or gliding club? There are loads of old farts too … but also a very healthy smattering of youth … and not all rich kids (not that there’s anything wrong with them either)
I worked as a professional fisherman with my father for a couple of years out of St Ives in Cornwall … I’ve seen many of those RYA yacht masters … Oh yes!
SS
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small clarification - A CRI can not be "paid" unless they hold a CPL. The payment I referred to was the "income" from not having to pay for flying - £1500+ per year at least.
An FI has the same privileges and more as a CRI in the same class of aircraft thus an FI does not need approval to act in the capacity of a CRI.
There is no requirement under JAR-FCL for training to be completed from a licensed airfield. JAR-FCL specifies the basic minimum requirements. It is the CAA that makes a licensed airfield mandatory. Simply removing this local UK restriction would give "sport aviation" a large financial boost. However, AFAIK, no person or organisation has put forward any sensible criteria for the standards at such unlicensed sites. The BMAA has certain minimum standards for microlight training sites.
There is no requirement for a licensed aerodrome to have ATC. Under present rules it is entirely possible to gain a JAA PPL without ever having used the radio or operated in controlled airspace. However, instructors recognise the problems with such training and in many cases ensure that the relevant experience is gained.
Taking this point further, a JAA PPL holder can legally fly round the world the day after gaining their licence. There has to be a sensible limit on the abinitio training provided along with a big dose of AIRMANSHIP training.
Whe it comes to PPL training can everyone stop mentioning FTOs. FTOs are for commercial training and must have certain accomodation standards. For PPL training only, RTFs are more appropriate and the accomodation requirements are more appropriate (basic).
People complain about not being able to give up time to complete the CPL exams. How do those people propose to provide suficient time to complete even a free FI course? Then having qualified, how to those "short of time" instructors see themselves being able to prepare for lessons and provide proper prepared and unrushed tuition?
----
SAS,
You have made me laugh.
Are we not trying to get away from instructors who "do it because they have to and not because they want to"? Many countries in Europe have legions of PPL instructors who instruct for the enjoyment.
What is the UK problem with voluntary work within one's own club?
How many football coaches in the local park on a Sunday morning are paid?
Perhaps this overriding desire for profit is limited to aviation? - I hope so.
Finally, of those few abinitio NPPLs, how many were microlight ratings?
No sane person pays for and completes 40 to 60+ hours of training to get a very restricted licence when an unrestricted licence can be obtained for the same effort and price (less if one goes elsewhere in Europe).
Regards,
DFC
An FI has the same privileges and more as a CRI in the same class of aircraft thus an FI does not need approval to act in the capacity of a CRI.
There is no requirement under JAR-FCL for training to be completed from a licensed airfield. JAR-FCL specifies the basic minimum requirements. It is the CAA that makes a licensed airfield mandatory. Simply removing this local UK restriction would give "sport aviation" a large financial boost. However, AFAIK, no person or organisation has put forward any sensible criteria for the standards at such unlicensed sites. The BMAA has certain minimum standards for microlight training sites.
There is no requirement for a licensed aerodrome to have ATC. Under present rules it is entirely possible to gain a JAA PPL without ever having used the radio or operated in controlled airspace. However, instructors recognise the problems with such training and in many cases ensure that the relevant experience is gained.
Taking this point further, a JAA PPL holder can legally fly round the world the day after gaining their licence. There has to be a sensible limit on the abinitio training provided along with a big dose of AIRMANSHIP training.
Whe it comes to PPL training can everyone stop mentioning FTOs. FTOs are for commercial training and must have certain accomodation standards. For PPL training only, RTFs are more appropriate and the accomodation requirements are more appropriate (basic).
People complain about not being able to give up time to complete the CPL exams. How do those people propose to provide suficient time to complete even a free FI course? Then having qualified, how to those "short of time" instructors see themselves being able to prepare for lessons and provide proper prepared and unrushed tuition?
----
SAS,
You have made me laugh.
You can't ask a volunteer to do tasks that they won't enjoy and if you do they can easily say no and walk away
What is the UK problem with voluntary work within one's own club?
How many football coaches in the local park on a Sunday morning are paid?
Perhaps this overriding desire for profit is limited to aviation? - I hope so.
Finally, of those few abinitio NPPLs, how many were microlight ratings?
No sane person pays for and completes 40 to 60+ hours of training to get a very restricted licence when an unrestricted licence can be obtained for the same effort and price (less if one goes elsewhere in Europe).
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be nice to have totally commited people who do it because they love it and it is probably the way forward, but if you have a totally volunteer based instructor group, you are subject their whims. What if they are sent away for work, last minute changes to their schedules etc. With employees this is far easier to control, volunteers (unpaid obviously) are doing you a favour, with human nature being what it is, that is a fact a flying school will be reminded of regularily.
The idea of having volunteers is great, but you cannot rely on them totally. I suppose it's like communism, great in theory but pretty lousy in practice!
The idea of having volunteers is great, but you cannot rely on them totally. I suppose it's like communism, great in theory but pretty lousy in practice!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
You've missed my point. I know that majority of present day instructors don't know about all those things I mentioned. However, a large number of very experienced, very enthusiastic pilots, who are "only PPLs", do. At present they're quite useful to the new PPL, who might want to try something new, or might want some friendly advice, if and when he/she bumps into them. How much more useful they'd be if they could instruct. They might prove to the new PPL who's fed up with just boring holes in the sky in their local area, that there's a lot more they could do. They could tell from experience. Which you, and other present day instructors, can't do, as you said. In fact, you were agreeing with me, but still didn't get my point
I think I'm talking round in circles here. I give up.
You've missed my point. I know that majority of present day instructors don't know about all those things I mentioned. However, a large number of very experienced, very enthusiastic pilots, who are "only PPLs", do. At present they're quite useful to the new PPL, who might want to try something new, or might want some friendly advice, if and when he/she bumps into them. How much more useful they'd be if they could instruct. They might prove to the new PPL who's fed up with just boring holes in the sky in their local area, that there's a lot more they could do. They could tell from experience. Which you, and other present day instructors, can't do, as you said. In fact, you were agreeing with me, but still didn't get my point
I think I'm talking round in circles here. I give up.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why would these people want to be instructors? A mentoring program using this experience would be great, but having them as instructors....
I do talk to people I fly with and find out what they want from flying, aswell as what they can get from it. That's all part of the sales pitch, give them a reason so that they can justify the expense.
Enthusiasm is great, but it doesn't make a good instructor, it helps certainly but it is not the be all and end all.
We mustn't forget that aviation is a business, so all the wonderful ideas of having highly experienced folk sitting around, but the reality is that there aren't that many highly experienced PPL's out there who would be willing to do this out of the kindness of their hearts.
How many PPL's with >1000hrs and experienced in all sorts of different flying are there? I can't think of more than 2. How many FI's can I think of like that? At least 30 and most have experience of airlines, air taxi, instruction, rotary, PFA and occasionally microlights.
Who would you rather have teaching?
I do talk to people I fly with and find out what they want from flying, aswell as what they can get from it. That's all part of the sales pitch, give them a reason so that they can justify the expense.
Enthusiasm is great, but it doesn't make a good instructor, it helps certainly but it is not the be all and end all.
We mustn't forget that aviation is a business, so all the wonderful ideas of having highly experienced folk sitting around, but the reality is that there aren't that many highly experienced PPL's out there who would be willing to do this out of the kindness of their hearts.
How many PPL's with >1000hrs and experienced in all sorts of different flying are there? I can't think of more than 2. How many FI's can I think of like that? At least 30 and most have experience of airlines, air taxi, instruction, rotary, PFA and occasionally microlights.
Who would you rather have teaching?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS:
Re. "But why would these people want to be instructors? A mentoring program using this experience would be great, but having them as instructors...."
IMHO these people are just a few as you say. However, the recent discussion seems to confirm that some people want to create an exclusive NPPL training tier, complete with instructors who have a different set of qualifications.
Re. "But why would these people want to be instructors? A mentoring program using this experience would be great, but having them as instructors...."
IMHO these people are just a few as you say. However, the recent discussion seems to confirm that some people want to create an exclusive NPPL training tier, complete with instructors who have a different set of qualifications.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again,
Ok ... as we are going round in circles let us just clarify a few things.
A PPL can be an instructor anyway ... but he/she needs to pass the CPL papers.
We have a whole new structure for the licensing of pilots in the "sports" category exclusively for this country ... the NPPL.
We have JAR that is internationally recognised unlike NPPL and requires its instructors to either have a CPL or have passed the CPL theory papers.
So ... The first bit.
As a PPL can instruct (but not be paid) the original question must be asking what everyone thinks about this. The debate then moved toward what we all think should be required, why and what effect our proposals might have. It then moved on to put to right all that is wrong with GA and how to entice more entrants. This progressed to the NPPL and pure PPL FIR. An outcry! “How dare a mere PPL think he is qualified to instruct, it would mean a whole new structure!”
So …the second bit.
The whole new structure. Those in the know have thankfully recognised the failings of JAR with regard to recreational flying and have fought tooth and nail to address the issue. They won the battle to get a more relaxed nationally restricted licence but so far have lost the war to allow a level playing field between classes and remove many of those very restrictions that JAR placed on SEP. This two tier NPPL is bound to fail at SEP level because the restricted NPPL virtually replicates JAR in cost with the only benefit being the less stringent medical. It does however, appear to be working just fine for the other classes and could for SEP if the same rules were followed. This is down to the CAA and us to convince them of a need. Unfortunately it seems that only those with vision and the ability to look outside their own small sector want or see the need to revitalise the system. An insular approach will IMHO never win you friends and will ultimately bring about no good to those who are blind or look but don’t see (hmmm! sounds like a country or two fall into this group?)
So … the last bit.
JAR is fine but it’s done B..all for me. Sour grapes? Maybe, but it hasn’t done me much harm either so I’m not that opposed … EASA might be different of course?
If JAR/EASA want to structure the “business” side of aviation that’s fine if they don’t forget the freedoms that we as Europeans are entitled to. If they want to insist that FI’s have CPL’s or whatever then fine if they are aiming at taking students toward commercial aviation. I really don’t see the need for this at a recreational level though and I have not seen one reason yet why it “should” be required.
So we come back to present requirement for PPL’s to pass the CPL papers to be able to instruct. This is unique to SEP and quite different to the microlight and glider requirements … why? DFC chipped in and suggested if you don't have time to do the papers how can you expect to devote enough time to instructing? Well the answer to that is not very hard to figure. It now requires at least two lots of two week sessions at ground school and a weeks consolidation to be allowed to sit the papers. Providing you pass you then need at least another 3 weeks to do the FIR course. Most of the people I’m talking about get 3-6 weeks holiday a year. They also have families who require a bit of their time. This is quite different to giving up weekends or one day a week which is what they will probably be doing once qualified. Using one years holiday to do an FI course is one thing … but two years holiday? Try getting that pass the other half!
SS
BTW … I know many 1000 hr PPL’s … your really must circulate in a very small part of the aviation community SAS.
Ok ... as we are going round in circles let us just clarify a few things.
A PPL can be an instructor anyway ... but he/she needs to pass the CPL papers.
We have a whole new structure for the licensing of pilots in the "sports" category exclusively for this country ... the NPPL.
We have JAR that is internationally recognised unlike NPPL and requires its instructors to either have a CPL or have passed the CPL theory papers.
So ... The first bit.
As a PPL can instruct (but not be paid) the original question must be asking what everyone thinks about this. The debate then moved toward what we all think should be required, why and what effect our proposals might have. It then moved on to put to right all that is wrong with GA and how to entice more entrants. This progressed to the NPPL and pure PPL FIR. An outcry! “How dare a mere PPL think he is qualified to instruct, it would mean a whole new structure!”
So …the second bit.
The whole new structure. Those in the know have thankfully recognised the failings of JAR with regard to recreational flying and have fought tooth and nail to address the issue. They won the battle to get a more relaxed nationally restricted licence but so far have lost the war to allow a level playing field between classes and remove many of those very restrictions that JAR placed on SEP. This two tier NPPL is bound to fail at SEP level because the restricted NPPL virtually replicates JAR in cost with the only benefit being the less stringent medical. It does however, appear to be working just fine for the other classes and could for SEP if the same rules were followed. This is down to the CAA and us to convince them of a need. Unfortunately it seems that only those with vision and the ability to look outside their own small sector want or see the need to revitalise the system. An insular approach will IMHO never win you friends and will ultimately bring about no good to those who are blind or look but don’t see (hmmm! sounds like a country or two fall into this group?)
So … the last bit.
JAR is fine but it’s done B..all for me. Sour grapes? Maybe, but it hasn’t done me much harm either so I’m not that opposed … EASA might be different of course?
If JAR/EASA want to structure the “business” side of aviation that’s fine if they don’t forget the freedoms that we as Europeans are entitled to. If they want to insist that FI’s have CPL’s or whatever then fine if they are aiming at taking students toward commercial aviation. I really don’t see the need for this at a recreational level though and I have not seen one reason yet why it “should” be required.
So we come back to present requirement for PPL’s to pass the CPL papers to be able to instruct. This is unique to SEP and quite different to the microlight and glider requirements … why? DFC chipped in and suggested if you don't have time to do the papers how can you expect to devote enough time to instructing? Well the answer to that is not very hard to figure. It now requires at least two lots of two week sessions at ground school and a weeks consolidation to be allowed to sit the papers. Providing you pass you then need at least another 3 weeks to do the FIR course. Most of the people I’m talking about get 3-6 weeks holiday a year. They also have families who require a bit of their time. This is quite different to giving up weekends or one day a week which is what they will probably be doing once qualified. Using one years holiday to do an FI course is one thing … but two years holiday? Try getting that pass the other half!
SS
BTW … I know many 1000 hr PPL’s … your really must circulate in a very small part of the aviation community SAS.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
No. they are doing themselves a favour. They get free flying. They also ensure that the costs of recreational sport aviation are kept to a minimum.
In a club, more PPls and students flying more hours per year reduces the hourly cost of the aircraft.
Instructor availability and student availability needs to be matched. People working M-F, 9-5 will only be available Sat and Sun to instruct. Students with the same work pattern will likewise only be available at those times to learn. If the instructor is away for a few weeks holiday then the student gets a holiday (or another instructor).
If the instructor regularly is away with work or is generally unreliable then don't give them students.
Now I see where you have a problem.
Professional Aviation is a business.
Sport aviation is not and that is where the UK will always fall down.
People can not envisage the true meaning of a flying club - a not for profit organisation operating for the benifit of the members. It is only by embracing the true concept of not for profit operation that the sport aviation NPPL can survive.
I was instructed through PPL, IMC, CPL and Instructor rating by instructors who were not paid a cent for their time. That vastly reduced the cost to me. In turn, I provide the instruction to new students for free also. Why can UK people not understand this concept. French training has relied and benifitted from it for years as do many other European countries.
Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a not for profit training establishment in the UK..............and that is the crux of the problem. it also leads us back to why ther is an NPPL - not to make things easier - not to make things cheaper - not to make it more fun - not to open flying to more people. The NPPL is a CAA supported marketing device that money making organisations thought would attract people to prop up their profits druing the post 911 hard times.
A not-for-profit club operating as an RTF or from an unlicensed airfield meeting JAR-FCL requirements and volunteer instructors teaching JAA PPL would have plenty of business. So where is the problem with JAA training and why bother with NPPL?
Regards,
DFC
volunteers (unpaid obviously) are doing you a favour
In a club, more PPls and students flying more hours per year reduces the hourly cost of the aircraft.
Instructor availability and student availability needs to be matched. People working M-F, 9-5 will only be available Sat and Sun to instruct. Students with the same work pattern will likewise only be available at those times to learn. If the instructor is away for a few weeks holiday then the student gets a holiday (or another instructor).
If the instructor regularly is away with work or is generally unreliable then don't give them students.
We mustn't forget that aviation is a business
Professional Aviation is a business.
Sport aviation is not and that is where the UK will always fall down.
People can not envisage the true meaning of a flying club - a not for profit organisation operating for the benifit of the members. It is only by embracing the true concept of not for profit operation that the sport aviation NPPL can survive.
I was instructed through PPL, IMC, CPL and Instructor rating by instructors who were not paid a cent for their time. That vastly reduced the cost to me. In turn, I provide the instruction to new students for free also. Why can UK people not understand this concept. French training has relied and benifitted from it for years as do many other European countries.
Unfortunately, I have yet to come across a not for profit training establishment in the UK..............and that is the crux of the problem. it also leads us back to why ther is an NPPL - not to make things easier - not to make things cheaper - not to make it more fun - not to open flying to more people. The NPPL is a CAA supported marketing device that money making organisations thought would attract people to prop up their profits druing the post 911 hard times.
A not-for-profit club operating as an RTF or from an unlicensed airfield meeting JAR-FCL requirements and volunteer instructors teaching JAA PPL would have plenty of business. So where is the problem with JAA training and why bother with NPPL?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French have a much healthier attitude to aviation than we do here. Most of the towns I have visited seem proud to have an air field, even if they aren't involved directly.
There are a few not-for-profit clubs around the country, Glasgow for example, and they do find it difficult to get full time instructors, they have many part-timers however.
The idea of students and instructors matching schedules is great in principle, but apart from weekends many students book at short notice and trial lessons do the same. Having full time instructors is necessary to ensure continuity of training and flexibility for the customers.
There is no getting away from aviation being a business. I certainly don't fly for altruistic reasons. I provide a service and expect to be recompensed for it. Why is flying any different from other industries? You don't expect a plumber to work for the love of it, why should any pilot?
Having unpaid individuals in any business destroys it for all the others who try to make a living from it. Why should I have to work for free just because a PPL with a highly paid job decides to teach 'for fun'? If they want to fly, hire or buy an a/c. Don't put people out of work for a selfish reason. How will that help the industry as a whole, you won't have any professional instructors left and we'll be back to the original problem.
SS,
I know plenty of PPL's who have far in excess of 1000hrs, but none are interested in instructing at all. My experience of the industry is pretty broad since you ask.
As a blinkered and insular individual I can obviously only see the issues that effect me, my students and the clubs I teach/have taught at.
Why do I have to know what is going on elsewhere to be able to recognise issues that stare me in the face everyday?
We are talking specifically about SEP machines here, the issues that affect microlights etc. are very different.
In this country we do like to indulge in a bit of JAA-bashing at every opportunity, but to be honest it hasn't been that bad at all. The revalidation requirements have been a great start despite some people's confusion.
Most of the problems come direct from Gatwick when the CAA change meanings and refuse to confirm meanings in documents. How many times have we asked for clarification only to be told "oh it'll be in a GID. It's just being proof read at the moment." Utter nonsense, they've only just noticed something and they're scrabbling to find an answer that won't drop them in the poo.
There are a few not-for-profit clubs around the country, Glasgow for example, and they do find it difficult to get full time instructors, they have many part-timers however.
The idea of students and instructors matching schedules is great in principle, but apart from weekends many students book at short notice and trial lessons do the same. Having full time instructors is necessary to ensure continuity of training and flexibility for the customers.
There is no getting away from aviation being a business. I certainly don't fly for altruistic reasons. I provide a service and expect to be recompensed for it. Why is flying any different from other industries? You don't expect a plumber to work for the love of it, why should any pilot?
Having unpaid individuals in any business destroys it for all the others who try to make a living from it. Why should I have to work for free just because a PPL with a highly paid job decides to teach 'for fun'? If they want to fly, hire or buy an a/c. Don't put people out of work for a selfish reason. How will that help the industry as a whole, you won't have any professional instructors left and we'll be back to the original problem.
SS,
I know plenty of PPL's who have far in excess of 1000hrs, but none are interested in instructing at all. My experience of the industry is pretty broad since you ask.
As a blinkered and insular individual I can obviously only see the issues that effect me, my students and the clubs I teach/have taught at.
Why do I have to know what is going on elsewhere to be able to recognise issues that stare me in the face everyday?
We are talking specifically about SEP machines here, the issues that affect microlights etc. are very different.
In this country we do like to indulge in a bit of JAA-bashing at every opportunity, but to be honest it hasn't been that bad at all. The revalidation requirements have been a great start despite some people's confusion.
Most of the problems come direct from Gatwick when the CAA change meanings and refuse to confirm meanings in documents. How many times have we asked for clarification only to be told "oh it'll be in a GID. It's just being proof read at the moment." Utter nonsense, they've only just noticed something and they're scrabbling to find an answer that won't drop them in the poo.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nppl etc
The majority of flying clubs in the UK are non-profit making. The greatest number will be owned by the members who belong to it and operate the club on behalf of the members. In most cases it will be amateurs ( members) providing paid work for some and unpaid work for others. In other cases, to a lessor extent flying clubs have been founded by professional people ( not always wealthy ) who are enthusiastic flyers funding the club, that they own, through subsidy or from very little profit.
The Instructor Rating is NOT a professional rating. It is attached to whatever licence that you hold; PPL/CPL/ATPL, it matters not.
Holding a CPL allows you to ring the till, that is all. The CPL is NOT a qualification to instruct ( a CPL is not allowed to do such ) nor a qualification that entitles you to be trained as an Instructor to any greater or lessor extent than a PPL may be.
To be an Instructor you require to hold only a PPL, a Class 1 medical plus 150 hours PIC and are currently required to have passed the CPL written papers. The purpose, to demonstrate to the authority ( CAA ) that you hold sufficient knowledge, prior to commencing the FIC course, to be an Instructor.
You may gabble on as much as you like about being paid or not and how much that pot of gold shall be. While a PPL may not be paid, holding a CPL allows you to be paid. Whether you are paid is between you and an employer, no one else. Neither the CAA or the JAA is a union. They do not care if you are paid. But if you are they, the CAA, only care that you are lawful in being so.
In a perfect world there would be no legislation at all. The Department of Transport or it's agencies such as the CAA are charged only to achieve a minimum level of safety and to be practical. Remember this, the department within the CAA that processes your licence is not called the Loads of Dosh or Free and Gratis Department. It is appropiately called the Safety Regulation Group of which licencing forms a part!
Will some of you get real ( if I may qoute my daughters vocabulary) the issue here is not about reducing safety by cutting corners. The arguement is whether the examinations, currently being required, go beyond the issue of saftey in their extent and also whether the medical standards demanded by the JAA/CAA are too restrictive for some of the kinds of activity for which the medical is required.
The minimum knowledge required to be a Flying Instructor can be defined quite easily in relation to what is to be taught. Medical standards are more difficult to decide upon. Statistics become, in many medical issues but not all, the only guidance. Instructors had for many years instructed on variously Class 1(r) or class 11 ( when a PPL flew on Class 111) without issue.
The JAA regulations have only sought to remedy the Commercial Public Transport Operations and as yet have not really got to grips with the very different safety requirements of GA. The CAA Licencing and Medical Departments are quite open about this problem.
Those who campaign here are not trying to re-invent the wheel but like me simply want to repair it. It is square at the moment.
The Instructor Rating is NOT a professional rating. It is attached to whatever licence that you hold; PPL/CPL/ATPL, it matters not.
Holding a CPL allows you to ring the till, that is all. The CPL is NOT a qualification to instruct ( a CPL is not allowed to do such ) nor a qualification that entitles you to be trained as an Instructor to any greater or lessor extent than a PPL may be.
To be an Instructor you require to hold only a PPL, a Class 1 medical plus 150 hours PIC and are currently required to have passed the CPL written papers. The purpose, to demonstrate to the authority ( CAA ) that you hold sufficient knowledge, prior to commencing the FIC course, to be an Instructor.
You may gabble on as much as you like about being paid or not and how much that pot of gold shall be. While a PPL may not be paid, holding a CPL allows you to be paid. Whether you are paid is between you and an employer, no one else. Neither the CAA or the JAA is a union. They do not care if you are paid. But if you are they, the CAA, only care that you are lawful in being so.
In a perfect world there would be no legislation at all. The Department of Transport or it's agencies such as the CAA are charged only to achieve a minimum level of safety and to be practical. Remember this, the department within the CAA that processes your licence is not called the Loads of Dosh or Free and Gratis Department. It is appropiately called the Safety Regulation Group of which licencing forms a part!
Will some of you get real ( if I may qoute my daughters vocabulary) the issue here is not about reducing safety by cutting corners. The arguement is whether the examinations, currently being required, go beyond the issue of saftey in their extent and also whether the medical standards demanded by the JAA/CAA are too restrictive for some of the kinds of activity for which the medical is required.
The minimum knowledge required to be a Flying Instructor can be defined quite easily in relation to what is to be taught. Medical standards are more difficult to decide upon. Statistics become, in many medical issues but not all, the only guidance. Instructors had for many years instructed on variously Class 1(r) or class 11 ( when a PPL flew on Class 111) without issue.
The JAA regulations have only sought to remedy the Commercial Public Transport Operations and as yet have not really got to grips with the very different safety requirements of GA. The CAA Licencing and Medical Departments are quite open about this problem.
Those who campaign here are not trying to re-invent the wheel but like me simply want to repair it. It is square at the moment.
As a PPL/FI, currently you only need a JAR Class 2 medical to instruct for non-remunerative flight instruction.
About the only thing that the NPPL P&SC do currently agree upon is that whatever changes might eventually come to the FI SEP requirements, the absolute minimum medical standard will not be less than a JAR Class 2.
Which would mean that those NPPL holders who cannot hold a JAR Class 2 medical would not, even if the FI rating requirements were to change, be able to hold an FI rating.
About the only thing that the NPPL P&SC do currently agree upon is that whatever changes might eventually come to the FI SEP requirements, the absolute minimum medical standard will not be less than a JAR Class 2.
Which would mean that those NPPL holders who cannot hold a JAR Class 2 medical would not, even if the FI rating requirements were to change, be able to hold an FI rating.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK ... I'm done with arguing my case, those who still think everything in the garden is rosey are far to reticent to even listen anymore. If I didn't enjoy aeros I'd be dizzy by all the going around in circles.
So just a few general questions as some here seem to be far more in the know about what CAA/JAR/EASA are planning...
Does anyone think there's likely to be any softening on the approach to the CPL exam side of things? I wouldn't mind doing them (I did actually start with PPSC before they went belly up) it's the required groundschool I can't manage. As I said in an earlier post you are looking at 2x2week college sessions + 1 week refresher and exams ... and thats' before taking the FI course. If I got the papers I probably would want to go the whole hog but that's at least another couple of weeks tagged as well. Beats me why the cumpulsury minimum hours study and groundschool was bought in at all? ... you're either good enough to pass the exams or not and everybodies study needs will vary.
Is there likely to be an "all in" FIR course without the need to hold the CPL papers?
Is the SEP side of the NPPL ever likely to be treated fairly by bringing it into line with the other groups?
Does anybody know the winning lottery numbers and care to pass them on? That way I can get around the feeding of a family whilst getting the bits of paper that are mostly (not all) irrelevent, but that are needed just to train to perhaps one day teach some of what I already know?
SS
So just a few general questions as some here seem to be far more in the know about what CAA/JAR/EASA are planning...
Does anyone think there's likely to be any softening on the approach to the CPL exam side of things? I wouldn't mind doing them (I did actually start with PPSC before they went belly up) it's the required groundschool I can't manage. As I said in an earlier post you are looking at 2x2week college sessions + 1 week refresher and exams ... and thats' before taking the FI course. If I got the papers I probably would want to go the whole hog but that's at least another couple of weeks tagged as well. Beats me why the cumpulsury minimum hours study and groundschool was bought in at all? ... you're either good enough to pass the exams or not and everybodies study needs will vary.
Is there likely to be an "all in" FIR course without the need to hold the CPL papers?
Is the SEP side of the NPPL ever likely to be treated fairly by bringing it into line with the other groups?
Does anybody know the winning lottery numbers and care to pass them on? That way I can get around the feeding of a family whilst getting the bits of paper that are mostly (not all) irrelevent, but that are needed just to train to perhaps one day teach some of what I already know?
SS
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
short striper:
I would be surprised if there is any softening at all.
As it stands, the existing FTO/RTFs have a glut of instructors available so they will not be knocking on the regulatory authorities doors.
How about this for a scenario (let's do some blue-sky thinking here):
From now on, there will always be a glut of instructors IMHO and what better than gaining an FI rating to "keep your hand in" whilst waiting for that shiny jet job (these are in the majority, the full-time instructor types, who don't have any other way of earning a living).
As for those part-timers, their make-up will be largely made up of off-duty airline pilots with an FI rating.
In the end there will be so few airfields/airports available (don't you know that there's a housing shortage in this country...) that the whole industry will be off-shored to Florida.
I would be surprised if there is any softening at all.
As it stands, the existing FTO/RTFs have a glut of instructors available so they will not be knocking on the regulatory authorities doors.
How about this for a scenario (let's do some blue-sky thinking here):
From now on, there will always be a glut of instructors IMHO and what better than gaining an FI rating to "keep your hand in" whilst waiting for that shiny jet job (these are in the majority, the full-time instructor types, who don't have any other way of earning a living).
As for those part-timers, their make-up will be largely made up of off-duty airline pilots with an FI rating.
In the end there will be so few airfields/airports available (don't you know that there's a housing shortage in this country...) that the whole industry will be off-shored to Florida.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, that's good to hear. I found the idea of people teaching on a self-cert medical extremely distrubing.
I actually do think that the CAA does give a monkey's about pay. Not in the sense of a union, but in that they would prefer if everybody was at least able to be renumerated. Yes of course you can teach on a PPL, but why, if you have gone through all the hassle of the groundschool, would you not do the CPL flight test?
Why are the safety needs of GA different from commercial ops? Do we accept a higher mortality rate? I don't think anyone at the CAA would ever admit to that and I certainly don't think it is acceptable.
I don't think there ever will be a 'softening' of exams, especially in relation to commercial groundschool.
Though why they don't make the CPL exams more GA specific (whatever that is?) and have the ATPL's more in relation to the airlines. The CPL is not taken by 'potential' airline pilots at all since they prefer the ATPL.
There is no doubt that are many problems that need fixing in the GA world, but allowing NPPL's to teach is not going to help, but this is a very interesting discussion and hopefully a few good ideas may come out of it.
I actually do think that the CAA does give a monkey's about pay. Not in the sense of a union, but in that they would prefer if everybody was at least able to be renumerated. Yes of course you can teach on a PPL, but why, if you have gone through all the hassle of the groundschool, would you not do the CPL flight test?
Why are the safety needs of GA different from commercial ops? Do we accept a higher mortality rate? I don't think anyone at the CAA would ever admit to that and I certainly don't think it is acceptable.
I don't think there ever will be a 'softening' of exams, especially in relation to commercial groundschool.
Though why they don't make the CPL exams more GA specific (whatever that is?) and have the ATPL's more in relation to the airlines. The CPL is not taken by 'potential' airline pilots at all since they prefer the ATPL.
There is no doubt that are many problems that need fixing in the GA world, but allowing NPPL's to teach is not going to help, but this is a very interesting discussion and hopefully a few good ideas may come out of it.
Personally I consider that an 'all-in' FI(R) course incorporating everything which used to be in the old R/BCPL theoretical knowledge requirements, plus everything needed to become an instructor would be fine. But candidates must first pass an assessment for suitability to teach - and demonstrate acceptable flying skills including IF. The resulting restricted licence would not be a CPL - hence 'hours builders' would still need to go by the current route having first passed the assessment tests - but would be available as an alternative 'professional instructor's licence' for PPL, Night Qualification and IMC Raing instruction only.
That is a personal view, not to be taken as representing the view of the NPPL P&SC.
That is a personal view, not to be taken as representing the view of the NPPL P&SC.