GAPAN proposes new Instructors Licence
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Train many More FI's
If an FI was paid well - then there would be no need for many guys to trade up to that better paid job
The reason why they get paid poorly? - cos' there are so many of them....
There will be even more FIs - if this proposal comes in and many will be hours building for a better paid (none instructor position)
People will always want to progress... Its just survival... Many
instructors only get paid the national min. wage..........
I was told by an instructor that between the wars it was quite a well paid job being an FI - then came WW2...
Anyway If this proposal comes in then NOBODY will do the CPL exams - why would they?
The reason why they get paid poorly? - cos' there are so many of them....
There will be even more FIs - if this proposal comes in and many will be hours building for a better paid (none instructor position)
People will always want to progress... Its just survival... Many
instructors only get paid the national min. wage..........
I was told by an instructor that between the wars it was quite a well paid job being an FI - then came WW2...
Anyway If this proposal comes in then NOBODY will do the CPL exams - why would they?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think (though I'm not sure) that the proposal means that we have a distinct instructor qualification, and that the hourbuilders can't instruct if they don't have it. So there will actually be LESS instructors, and those that there are will want to be instructors. The hourbuilders will have to hourbuild some other way, and the instructors will be better paid...law of supply and demand. The students will be taught be instructors who want to be there, who are trained to teach, and who will probably stay for longer. So they'll probably complete the course in fewer hours, costing less for them overall.
At least, that's how it would be if I was responsible for it.
At least, that's how it would be if I was responsible for it.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason fixed wing instructors remuneration is so poor is market forces, pure and simple. I have been in aviation since I lerned to fly in 1970 and then instructed for 25 years. During all that time, there have always been plenty of instructors because, for one reason or another, instruction could be used for hour building which either helped to get that CPL or made it easier to get that job because there were more hours in your logbook.
In the early days, you either forked out an arm and a leg to do an approved course to get a CPL/IR with about 250 hours experience, or gained 750 hours somehow and then you could take the tests. Pass them and your licence was issued. The hours could be gained (unless you were wealthy) by either para dropping, glider towing or - instructing - .
The aim has always been to get "career" instructors for the reasons stated in other posts. I obtained my rating by doing a course once I had achieved 150 hours P1 on my PPL. I never thought of gaining my CPL (the old way) until I has amassed over 1200 hours - but then I enjoyed instructing and it was my weekend hobby. During that time I crossed the path of many an hour building instructor and had to sort out the problems that they left behind. Then, to overcome this problem, the powers that be introduced the requirement to gain a BCPL before gaining an FI rating, now it is a full CPL. What has also happened is that it is much easier to borrow money for training than it was 35 years ago, and as plenty of people want to become airline pilots, they are not restricted by a lack of funds in the way we were previously, never mind the cost of the loan - live today! So now, to make themselves more attractive to employers, such people borrow even more to gain their FI ratings and then bump up their hours.
The ONLY way to gain career instructors is to make it impossible for such people to use the position to further their career with the airlines. Then the only people who gain such ratings will do so because they really want to instruct. This will cause a shortage and the pay will increase to make it worthwhile for such people to gain their ratings. It will also increase the cost of learning to fly.
P.P.
In the early days, you either forked out an arm and a leg to do an approved course to get a CPL/IR with about 250 hours experience, or gained 750 hours somehow and then you could take the tests. Pass them and your licence was issued. The hours could be gained (unless you were wealthy) by either para dropping, glider towing or - instructing - .
The aim has always been to get "career" instructors for the reasons stated in other posts. I obtained my rating by doing a course once I had achieved 150 hours P1 on my PPL. I never thought of gaining my CPL (the old way) until I has amassed over 1200 hours - but then I enjoyed instructing and it was my weekend hobby. During that time I crossed the path of many an hour building instructor and had to sort out the problems that they left behind. Then, to overcome this problem, the powers that be introduced the requirement to gain a BCPL before gaining an FI rating, now it is a full CPL. What has also happened is that it is much easier to borrow money for training than it was 35 years ago, and as plenty of people want to become airline pilots, they are not restricted by a lack of funds in the way we were previously, never mind the cost of the loan - live today! So now, to make themselves more attractive to employers, such people borrow even more to gain their FI ratings and then bump up their hours.
The ONLY way to gain career instructors is to make it impossible for such people to use the position to further their career with the airlines. Then the only people who gain such ratings will do so because they really want to instruct. This will cause a shortage and the pay will increase to make it worthwhile for such people to gain their ratings. It will also increase the cost of learning to fly.
P.P.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professional Instructors
I really cannot believe that having a dedicated Instructor Rating should affect anyone other than those who are not really bothered to do and know the job well.
Any qualification required by law should not be to protect anyones interest other than the recipients training. It certainly should not be designed to provide a path to other things.
However, should a potential 'Airline Pilot' believe that it is in their interest to gain an 'Instructor Rating' , building hours and life experiences to enhance their chances to find work such as flying a Heavy Transport then thats OK with me.
But! Why the hell should someone who wishes to instruct be it full time or part time - for that is a choice - have to first qualify to be a 'Heavy Aircraft Public Transport Pilot', as now? That makes no sense.
As to a regime; selection of the right types of chaps to be Instructors. God forbid that the Stalinist/Social Elite, those who advocate that they know best, should be allowed to vet the types of people who should be Instructors. No! No! What a disaster that would be.
Any qualification required by law should not be to protect anyones interest other than the recipients training. It certainly should not be designed to provide a path to other things.
However, should a potential 'Airline Pilot' believe that it is in their interest to gain an 'Instructor Rating' , building hours and life experiences to enhance their chances to find work such as flying a Heavy Transport then thats OK with me.
But! Why the hell should someone who wishes to instruct be it full time or part time - for that is a choice - have to first qualify to be a 'Heavy Aircraft Public Transport Pilot', as now? That makes no sense.
As to a regime; selection of the right types of chaps to be Instructors. God forbid that the Stalinist/Social Elite, those who advocate that they know best, should be allowed to vet the types of people who should be Instructors. No! No! What a disaster that would be.
Apologies to those who knew the old system if this is a bit long winded.
I'm afraid I would agree with lady in red - to give value to a flying club a ppl instructor really needs to know about things that your average ppl holder is likely to want to do - VFR flying in UK and across the channel, air rallies, flying into grass strips, and possibly a working knowledge and experience of pfa type aircraft and maybe even some microlight flying thrown in.
Most graduates from abinitio CPL courses have little or no knowledge of any of these things. Most likely someone who has held a ppl for years and wants to instruct part time at weekends because flying is their hobby will have a better knowledge of such subjects. So what if they cannot fly complex singles or twins and don't hold an instrument rating with an MCC certificate and a jet orientation course completed. The average PPL has only a passing interest in such things and is more likely to want to know about flying into Little Snodgrass than Heathrow.
Conversely an instructor instructing at a school offering commercial training is going to need CPL/IR/ATPL knowledge.
In the good old days there was a distint split. Club instructors had a ppl/imc/night rating and an instructor rating (either AFI or QFI) and they taught for those ratings. A CPL was only required to teach commercial/FI or IR. Clubs were well served by these ppl instructors, most of whom tended to instruct for longer just because it took longer to get qualified even if they were hours building. Most would get their CPL at about 800 hours and then scrape together the money for an IR which they would have with about 1500 - 2000 hours of instructing at which point if they were lucky they might get a job on an SD360 or something similar.
At the other end of the scale the few commercial training schools were staffed mainly by instructors who were ex military or ex BA, who having retired at 55 didn't have the option of flying for easyjet or ryan air and handed their skills and knowledge back to the next generation of pilots. Because the vast majority of CPL candidates were only doing enough training to pass the CPL and IR (the 700 hours exemted you from any formal course) there was no need for huge numbers of CPL and IR instructors - many of whom nowdays have little more experience than their students in actual commercial/IFR operations.
So really the system today doesn't work - you have a lot of FI(r)s at flying clubs who never bother to become IMC or night instructors and have probably never been inverted in an aircraft in their lives so definately no aerobatic instructor rating. Perhaps they have better theoretical knowledge from the ATPLs but 90% of that isn't even relevant to operating commercially on a day to day basis.
If you really want to solve the problem then just stop hours logged as an instructor being allowable to unfreeze an ATPL, obviously with some lead in time for those already in the system.
Anyone who wants to be an airline pilot can then get the multicrew license when it is introduced.
I'm afraid I would agree with lady in red - to give value to a flying club a ppl instructor really needs to know about things that your average ppl holder is likely to want to do - VFR flying in UK and across the channel, air rallies, flying into grass strips, and possibly a working knowledge and experience of pfa type aircraft and maybe even some microlight flying thrown in.
Most graduates from abinitio CPL courses have little or no knowledge of any of these things. Most likely someone who has held a ppl for years and wants to instruct part time at weekends because flying is their hobby will have a better knowledge of such subjects. So what if they cannot fly complex singles or twins and don't hold an instrument rating with an MCC certificate and a jet orientation course completed. The average PPL has only a passing interest in such things and is more likely to want to know about flying into Little Snodgrass than Heathrow.
Conversely an instructor instructing at a school offering commercial training is going to need CPL/IR/ATPL knowledge.
In the good old days there was a distint split. Club instructors had a ppl/imc/night rating and an instructor rating (either AFI or QFI) and they taught for those ratings. A CPL was only required to teach commercial/FI or IR. Clubs were well served by these ppl instructors, most of whom tended to instruct for longer just because it took longer to get qualified even if they were hours building. Most would get their CPL at about 800 hours and then scrape together the money for an IR which they would have with about 1500 - 2000 hours of instructing at which point if they were lucky they might get a job on an SD360 or something similar.
At the other end of the scale the few commercial training schools were staffed mainly by instructors who were ex military or ex BA, who having retired at 55 didn't have the option of flying for easyjet or ryan air and handed their skills and knowledge back to the next generation of pilots. Because the vast majority of CPL candidates were only doing enough training to pass the CPL and IR (the 700 hours exemted you from any formal course) there was no need for huge numbers of CPL and IR instructors - many of whom nowdays have little more experience than their students in actual commercial/IFR operations.
So really the system today doesn't work - you have a lot of FI(r)s at flying clubs who never bother to become IMC or night instructors and have probably never been inverted in an aircraft in their lives so definately no aerobatic instructor rating. Perhaps they have better theoretical knowledge from the ATPLs but 90% of that isn't even relevant to operating commercially on a day to day basis.
If you really want to solve the problem then just stop hours logged as an instructor being allowable to unfreeze an ATPL, obviously with some lead in time for those already in the system.
Anyone who wants to be an airline pilot can then get the multicrew license when it is introduced.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excrab,
I couldn't agree more. When I got my PPL(A), I remember asking about landing on grass, and no-one was really very familiar with it! Later I asked about taildraggers, and they looked at me as though I was some kind of loony!!! The school was almost totally geared up to getting people through the PPL, then possibly IMC, and maybe then going commercial. Anything else seemed to be a complete blank to them - they didn't know about it and didn't want to.
I couldn't agree more. When I got my PPL(A), I remember asking about landing on grass, and no-one was really very familiar with it! Later I asked about taildraggers, and they looked at me as though I was some kind of loony!!! The school was almost totally geared up to getting people through the PPL, then possibly IMC, and maybe then going commercial. Anything else seemed to be a complete blank to them - they didn't know about it and didn't want to.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Multi-Pilot Rating
This GAPAN legislation will not solve any of the above issues
I reckon it will be solved when airline pilots do almost all of their training on airline sims as they will shortly be able to do........under ICAO
The GA sector will then be separate as on Page 8
http://www.faa.gov/avr/iasconference...20PEL_ICAO.pdf
I reckon it will be solved when airline pilots do almost all of their training on airline sims as they will shortly be able to do........under ICAO
The GA sector will then be separate as on Page 8
http://www.faa.gov/avr/iasconference...20PEL_ICAO.pdf
Last edited by RVR800; 9th Dec 2004 at 15:14.
RVR800 - the MPL proposal is not making much progress, thank heavens. Only 10 hours solo time ever? The airlines are getting cold feet not because they have the safety concerns which wiser heads have, but because they're worried that they may have to start paying for training. Bean counter concern, not safety culture concern. Speaks volumes about current airline decision makers, in the view of many.
There is NO 'GAPAN legislation'....
Minor changes to the existing FI rating privileges are all that would be needed to achieve the Instructor Sub-Comittee's aims - together with a more appropriate FI course.
The prospective airline 'hours building FI' currently goes down a PPL, CPL/IR, FI, hours build sequence - the intention is to change that to PPL, FI for those who want it. The prospective people-tube person then continues with hours building followed by CPL/IR. And why not?
There is NO 'GAPAN legislation'....
Minor changes to the existing FI rating privileges are all that would be needed to achieve the Instructor Sub-Comittee's aims - together with a more appropriate FI course.
The prospective airline 'hours building FI' currently goes down a PPL, CPL/IR, FI, hours build sequence - the intention is to change that to PPL, FI for those who want it. The prospective people-tube person then continues with hours building followed by CPL/IR. And why not?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes re:MPL isn't it all signed off for go live in 2007 under the FAA?
Think that link (above) shows that date.
But in Europe it isn't agreed: suppose there are so many folks willing to stump up £100K incl 737 type ratings in EU that there is no need for the airlines to bother.....Suppose it would be good for Ryanair if those same folks paid the airline the same cash though then they could train them in-house-That would be a nice additional income stream for them..
Think that link (above) shows that date.
But in Europe it isn't agreed: suppose there are so many folks willing to stump up £100K incl 737 type ratings in EU that there is no need for the airlines to bother.....Suppose it would be good for Ryanair if those same folks paid the airline the same cash though then they could train them in-house-That would be a nice additional income stream for them..
