Quality of instructors; on the way down!!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Standards & Quality
I'm not convinced that the new Instructors are so awful. What is true is that the average Instructor is considerably younger and is now on a 'self improver' fast track to the airline job with very few older and mature individuals coming into the system. It is the lack of maturity that we have lost and also the continuity of instructing staff.
Economics set the wage pay not flying school owners or commitees. The UK interpretation of JAR has been the main cause of our problems both for our Instructors and the flying schools alike. This problem will not be remedid until we have a dedecated Instructor Qualififcation with it's own exams and testing regime. Instructing should be taken out of the Public Transport (Carriage of Passengers) law.
The FI(r) system is in itself a nonsense and dosn't recognise a difference between a rookie and an experienced and mature instructor nor even that the FI(r) has even taught the complete syllabus before becoming unrestricted and being able to work unsupervised - ugh, sorry as a restricted FI they don't even need to be supervised! The FI(r) becomes unrestricted simply by filling in a form having had no further advanced instructor training nor assessment but will simply have knocked off the required hours perhaps over a couple of months.
Economics set the wage pay not flying school owners or commitees. The UK interpretation of JAR has been the main cause of our problems both for our Instructors and the flying schools alike. This problem will not be remedid until we have a dedecated Instructor Qualififcation with it's own exams and testing regime. Instructing should be taken out of the Public Transport (Carriage of Passengers) law.
The FI(r) system is in itself a nonsense and dosn't recognise a difference between a rookie and an experienced and mature instructor nor even that the FI(r) has even taught the complete syllabus before becoming unrestricted and being able to work unsupervised - ugh, sorry as a restricted FI they don't even need to be supervised! The FI(r) becomes unrestricted simply by filling in a form having had no further advanced instructor training nor assessment but will simply have knocked off the required hours perhaps over a couple of months.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Death of PPL
The problem is that more people now get a CPL than PPL if you believe the CAA consultancy report (Pilot Magazine)
GA is on 'a downward spiral' according to the CAA report which itself is in denial about the trends so evident in its own data and the consultants report.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/Trends%2...n%20201205.pdf
Costs are too high and we are not competing with the FAA system. Many vote with their cheque book becoming FAA PPL-IR 'N' class owners.
We are held to ransom by a multi-national self-serving bureauocracy intent upon adding cost and intent upon over regulation.....
The CAA are increasing costs above inflation. The JAA are obsessed with airliners they ignore GA by accepting the poor take-up on ratings like the PPL and IR concentrating instead on The Multi-Pilot Rating that as Asian Frog says will futher divide GA from the the airline community
The government want to turn many airfields into housing estates by accelerating th eplanning process and GA may suffer from the green lobby unless new technolgy can be approved and developed quickly - fat chance....
GA is on 'a downward spiral' according to the CAA report which itself is in denial about the trends so evident in its own data and the consultants report.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1/Trends%2...n%20201205.pdf
Costs are too high and we are not competing with the FAA system. Many vote with their cheque book becoming FAA PPL-IR 'N' class owners.
We are held to ransom by a multi-national self-serving bureauocracy intent upon adding cost and intent upon over regulation.....
The CAA are increasing costs above inflation. The JAA are obsessed with airliners they ignore GA by accepting the poor take-up on ratings like the PPL and IR concentrating instead on The Multi-Pilot Rating that as Asian Frog says will futher divide GA from the the airline community
The government want to turn many airfields into housing estates by accelerating th eplanning process and GA may suffer from the green lobby unless new technolgy can be approved and developed quickly - fat chance....
Last edited by RVR800; 25th Apr 2006 at 14:01.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI's without CPL
I don't agree with anyone's comments on allowing pilots with NPPL's or PPL's to train as a flying instructor for renumeration.
A proper CPL course tones up PPL skills and demands accuracy in flying. The medical required is Class 1 and thats important due to the physical requirements of a flying instructor. The exams you need to pass are more geared to the airlines, thats true, but thats because the norm is to move on eventually to bigger stuff (not necessarily better!).
An instructor should have experience and detailed knowledge, not just in terms of flying hours by the way.
I'm young-ish, just finishing my FiC and passionate about passing on my love for flying to others. I have criticisms about how I was taught to fly but aim not to repeat them myself. The course is hard, fun and requires depth of knowledge. There has to be a standard for taking the course and a PPL or NPPL isn't sufficient in my view.
Sorry!
A proper CPL course tones up PPL skills and demands accuracy in flying. The medical required is Class 1 and thats important due to the physical requirements of a flying instructor. The exams you need to pass are more geared to the airlines, thats true, but thats because the norm is to move on eventually to bigger stuff (not necessarily better!).
An instructor should have experience and detailed knowledge, not just in terms of flying hours by the way.
I'm young-ish, just finishing my FiC and passionate about passing on my love for flying to others. I have criticisms about how I was taught to fly but aim not to repeat them myself. The course is hard, fun and requires depth of knowledge. There has to be a standard for taking the course and a PPL or NPPL isn't sufficient in my view.
Sorry!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the real world the type of licence you have is an irrelevance. I have met and flown with some ATPL's who I consider to be a danger to all around them and some PPL's who have my highest respect.
The key is to try and get everyone who teaches up to a certain standard.
One thing you'll come to realise in the future is how little you actually know about being a PPL, and since that is what most FI's teach, what on earth does an integrated fATPL holder know about it?
There is an awful lot more to teaching people to fly than just stick and rudder skills and I've not seen a single course that could ever replace experience for giving you the knowledge you'll need, and that is something an experienced PPL wil always have over someone straight from school even if they do have an almighty CPL.......
The key is to try and get everyone who teaches up to a certain standard.
One thing you'll come to realise in the future is how little you actually know about being a PPL, and since that is what most FI's teach, what on earth does an integrated fATPL holder know about it?
There is an awful lot more to teaching people to fly than just stick and rudder skills and I've not seen a single course that could ever replace experience for giving you the knowledge you'll need, and that is something an experienced PPL wil always have over someone straight from school even if they do have an almighty CPL.......
Quite right, S a S!
Incidentally, a Class 1 medical is not compulsory for instructing; it is possible for PPL holders to conduct non-remunerated PPL instruction (although they still have to learn all about the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone and know how wide the red stripes need to be on the streamers below tethered kites....
).
Young eager puppy FIs building their hours pre-airline application do indeed need supervising very carefully!
Incidentally, a Class 1 medical is not compulsory for instructing; it is possible for PPL holders to conduct non-remunerated PPL instruction (although they still have to learn all about the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone and know how wide the red stripes need to be on the streamers below tethered kites....
).Young eager puppy FIs building their hours pre-airline application do indeed need supervising very carefully!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Homeguard on this one , I do not think that the quality of instructors is poor, what I do know is that all FI holders have demonstrated skill and knowledge to a certain standard and have demonstrated committment and staying power. Most of my colleagues are well trained, confident, outgoing and well capable of teaching students how to fly and make good decisions
I am a "mature" self improver with a lot of experience as a PPL holder under my belt, most of my colleagues are fast track academy graduates and they are good instructors !
Maybe it depends on the standard of the school that you work at ? and the standard set at interview / check flight.
I am a "mature" self improver with a lot of experience as a PPL holder under my belt, most of my colleagues are fast track academy graduates and they are good instructors !
Maybe it depends on the standard of the school that you work at ? and the standard set at interview / check flight.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't a subject I have very strong thoughts on. But after reading the thread, the conclusions I've drawn are that there are a number of problems, or perceived problems. Specifically:
SaS's point about there being some very good PPLs and some very poor ATPLs is absolutely true. It's all very well saying that some PPLs are good - but how do we ensure that it's only the good ones who become instructors? With the system as it stands at the moment, it is possible for someone to pass a PPL (which, lets face it, is not a test of a "good" pilot, only a test of a "safe" pilot), and then become an instructor without any real check on the quality of his flying. There is the pre-entry test before starting the instructor course, but that's a bit of a joke because it is carried out by the FIC instructor, who has a good commercial reason for passing the candidate (i.e. the candidate will not be able to train with him, and he will loose money, if the candidate fails the pre-entry test). And then there is the FI(R) test at the end of the course - but that's a test of instructing, not a test of flying. So that's why I think it's important to go through some kind of advanced training and testing, and the CPL is ideal.
FFF
---------
- The ground exams are putting experienced private pilots off of becoming an instructor
- There are too many people entering instruction without very much experience
- Instructors don't get paid enough
- The CPL exams are only really useful for flying light aircraft - in most cases, instructing. So, rather than remove the requirement for CPL exams, lets change the CPL syllabus so that it is geared towards flying light aircraft
- Increase the experience requirements. The comments on this thread suggest that the perceived lack of experience specifically relates to the fact that people come off of CPL/IR courses having never done any private flying, then teach people to be private pilots. So how about a requirement for 200 hours P1. This is deliberately higher than the requirement for either modular or integrated CPL, so once an hour-building pilot has his CPL/IR he will be required to do more P1 flying (in a private flying environment) before he can become an instructor.
- The increased experience requirements will hopefully reduce the number of hour-builders entering the profession, and cause a short-term instructor shortage. This shortage would be dealt with by schools putting up their instructors' wages, encouraging experienced private pilots to become instructors.
SaS's point about there being some very good PPLs and some very poor ATPLs is absolutely true. It's all very well saying that some PPLs are good - but how do we ensure that it's only the good ones who become instructors? With the system as it stands at the moment, it is possible for someone to pass a PPL (which, lets face it, is not a test of a "good" pilot, only a test of a "safe" pilot), and then become an instructor without any real check on the quality of his flying. There is the pre-entry test before starting the instructor course, but that's a bit of a joke because it is carried out by the FIC instructor, who has a good commercial reason for passing the candidate (i.e. the candidate will not be able to train with him, and he will loose money, if the candidate fails the pre-entry test). And then there is the FI(R) test at the end of the course - but that's a test of instructing, not a test of flying. So that's why I think it's important to go through some kind of advanced training and testing, and the CPL is ideal.
FFF
---------
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Goodwood
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF - wise words, and certainly reflecting much of the sentiment at the GAPAN/CFS FI forum at Cranwell yesterday.
Interesting that one school of thought (championed by AOPA amongst others) is pushing for a return to the PPL FI (similar to what I understand is about to happen with the NPPL, Microlights and SLMGs), whilst another (lead by Dorothy Pooley et al) is promoting a specific Instructor's Licence, not unlike FFF's 'PPL focussed' CPL, allowing for paid instruction and a greater level of theoretical knowledge and flying skill.
Personally I think that the skill level requirement for FIs is under-rated, and again yesterday the point was strongly made that it is very difficult to teach beyond your own standard. FIs must also have the additional capacity to demonstrate accurate flying whilst teaching, monitoring the student, and carrying out all of the nav/comms/lookout airmanship tasks.
As already highlighted, the FIC pre-flight test is a complete joke. Have it done independently? The CAA only have 7 fixed wing examiners who are already hugely busy.
I'm sure that there are some experienced PPLs out there who would make terrific instructors. I have also flown with a number of PPLs who would like to go down this route and would make dreadful FIs.
Interesting that one school of thought (championed by AOPA amongst others) is pushing for a return to the PPL FI (similar to what I understand is about to happen with the NPPL, Microlights and SLMGs), whilst another (lead by Dorothy Pooley et al) is promoting a specific Instructor's Licence, not unlike FFF's 'PPL focussed' CPL, allowing for paid instruction and a greater level of theoretical knowledge and flying skill.
Personally I think that the skill level requirement for FIs is under-rated, and again yesterday the point was strongly made that it is very difficult to teach beyond your own standard. FIs must also have the additional capacity to demonstrate accurate flying whilst teaching, monitoring the student, and carrying out all of the nav/comms/lookout airmanship tasks.
As already highlighted, the FIC pre-flight test is a complete joke. Have it done independently? The CAA only have 7 fixed wing examiners who are already hugely busy.
I'm sure that there are some experienced PPLs out there who would make terrific instructors. I have also flown with a number of PPLs who would like to go down this route and would make dreadful FIs.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hoops and who sets the jumps
I really don't think we should allow the CAA or anybody else to decide who is the right sought of chap or gal to be a Flying Instructor. Such ideas are usually subjective and will be wrong. The world is littered with very successful people who were earlier told that they would never do any good. And any way, one mans meat is another mans poison. It certainly shouldn't be for a regulatory body to restrict entrants in order to boost the income, careers or the viabilty of schools. Economics do that already. The prices and wages are set by what the man in the street has left in his pocket.
The suitablity of an Instructor to instruct should be an essentiall element of the training and will be assessed for the required standard by test. The pre-course test is simply to ensure that the potential instructor has the required minimum knowledge and basic flying ability to be further trained and as such it cannot and should not be a filtering mechanism.
The point about the CPL exams is not that they are difficult but that they are not relevant to instructing although certain elements of the exams are. A potential pilot instructor may have passed the CPL/ATPL exams but still not have seen a POH or how to research the ANO or AIP. They are usually given extracts.
A dedicated FI exam and test preceded by proper ground training to that end will be better to ensure that all instructors have the required relevant knowledge needed to pass onto their students. The ground course should not be based on feedback questions and exam technique but a considered, thoughtful progress to the standard of lnowledge and how to pass it on. A lot more emphasis must also be made on how to brief (without powerpoint) clearly and succinctly while maintaining the students attention - that is to teach. Power Point is an aid but not a method! I'm appalled sometimes at the standard of briefing that I've witnessed at various seminars and God knows what they say to the student in the aeroplane..
The suitablity of an Instructor to instruct should be an essentiall element of the training and will be assessed for the required standard by test. The pre-course test is simply to ensure that the potential instructor has the required minimum knowledge and basic flying ability to be further trained and as such it cannot and should not be a filtering mechanism.
The point about the CPL exams is not that they are difficult but that they are not relevant to instructing although certain elements of the exams are. A potential pilot instructor may have passed the CPL/ATPL exams but still not have seen a POH or how to research the ANO or AIP. They are usually given extracts.
A dedicated FI exam and test preceded by proper ground training to that end will be better to ensure that all instructors have the required relevant knowledge needed to pass onto their students. The ground course should not be based on feedback questions and exam technique but a considered, thoughtful progress to the standard of lnowledge and how to pass it on. A lot more emphasis must also be made on how to brief (without powerpoint) clearly and succinctly while maintaining the students attention - that is to teach. Power Point is an aid but not a method! I'm appalled sometimes at the standard of briefing that I've witnessed at various seminars and God knows what they say to the student in the aeroplane..
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Goodwood
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by homeguard
The pre-course test is simply to ensure that the potential instructor has the required minimum knowledge and basic flying ability to be further trained and as such it cannot and should not be a filtering mechanism..
greeners,
There is no intention in the AOPA initiative of reducing the flying and instructional skills of the prospective FI, so whether the FI would hold a PPL or CPL should be irrelevant. The main changes proposed are far more relevant theoretical knowledge requirements, plus greater emphasis on instructional techniques and the ability to impart instruction.
There is no intention in the AOPA initiative of reducing the flying and instructional skills of the prospective FI, so whether the FI would hold a PPL or CPL should be irrelevant. The main changes proposed are far more relevant theoretical knowledge requirements, plus greater emphasis on instructional techniques and the ability to impart instruction.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with FFF that the CPL theory needs changing so that is more closely meets the needs of the flight instructor.. Of course one issue is what how to train people generically across a whole load of different areas. As an FI I could instruct at Jerez or teach PPLs so the licence should encapsulate all those potential career routes.
Im afraid that lot of this discussion is really about reducing cost and time for PPL people wanting to teach rather than improving standards.. they could then accept a lower wage because of their reduced training costs
The CPL is a level above PPL and normally one would expect that person to have a higher standard of flying.
The teaching bit comes after that - FIC instructors should not have to teach Bloggs to fly just to teach...
As for a teaching qualification - one could do one at the local college and it will cover a whole load of stuff not taught to FIs about teaching.. Blooms Theory - Psychomotor skills domain etc..
Im afraid that lot of this discussion is really about reducing cost and time for PPL people wanting to teach rather than improving standards.. they could then accept a lower wage because of their reduced training costs
The CPL is a level above PPL and normally one would expect that person to have a higher standard of flying.
The teaching bit comes after that - FIC instructors should not have to teach Bloggs to fly just to teach...
As for a teaching qualification - one could do one at the local college and it will cover a whole load of stuff not taught to FIs about teaching.. Blooms Theory - Psychomotor skills domain etc..
Last edited by RVR800; 27th Apr 2006 at 08:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hasn't the RAF churned out top quality QFIs for years without reams of painful courses of largely pointless exams? Surely the CFS course is a good model for a future FI rating/licence - a concentrated flying course with interspersed and relevant groundschool. People graduate with 'restricted' abilities and then progress through upgrades by reattending CFS to do further short flying/groundschool. Most importantly as well, the course is taught to a detailed syllabus with quality supporting Flight Training Publications detailing standardised ac handling and teaching points.
I am working towards my FI rating (nearly finished all the CPL groundschool) and have brought various books/syllabuses to read up, but there is no coherent information on the actual teaching points of the exercises. The best is the On-Track info that is modelled on the CFS notes.
I am working towards my FI rating (nearly finished all the CPL groundschool) and have brought various books/syllabuses to read up, but there is no coherent information on the actual teaching points of the exercises. The best is the On-Track info that is modelled on the CFS notes.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was chatting to an FIE today and he is of the opinion that the quality of FI's being produced today is higher than that of the old BCPL days. Where he believes the standard is higher is quality of briefing / debriefing and theoretical knowledge.
I have just begun as an FI with only 50 odd hours instructor in the book but I have always been amazed by what you hear when people say "never become an instructor just for the hours". I think by the nature of what we pilots are none of us would become an FI with the attitude of "it's for the hours alone, don't care how good I am at it". It goes IMHO against the very grain that makes us cut out to be professional pilots.
Having spoken to guys I did FI course with we are all loving every minute of it. Nothing more satisfying then seeing a student struggle with something, then finally get it right, then you ask them to do it one more time and they get it right again. I have taken more satisfaction from that then extra 50 hours in the logbook.
I have just begun as an FI with only 50 odd hours instructor in the book but I have always been amazed by what you hear when people say "never become an instructor just for the hours". I think by the nature of what we pilots are none of us would become an FI with the attitude of "it's for the hours alone, don't care how good I am at it". It goes IMHO against the very grain that makes us cut out to be professional pilots.
Having spoken to guys I did FI course with we are all loving every minute of it. Nothing more satisfying then seeing a student struggle with something, then finally get it right, then you ask them to do it one more time and they get it right again. I have taken more satisfaction from that then extra 50 hours in the logbook.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are mainly speaking about pilots on the way up. What about geriatrics like myself? I have over 15,000hrs, of which 2500 is in singles with about 1200hrs instructing, although retired I still fly my own aircraft, and would like to resume instructing, but the hoops are just too many and too expensive, and the annual requirements too much, so what useful info and experience I might have to give is wasted. I know I could walk into a club tomorrow and give a valuable day's teaching, but the CAA don't see it like that. I'm sure a great many feel the same way, what a waste of a resource.
and would like to resume instructing, but the hoops are just too many and too expensive, and the annual requirements too much
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, you pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Ok, that's actually a little harsh as there are some excellent flying club instructors out there. There are however, a fair few tits. I get £8.00 per flying hour to instruct. Admittedly I do it for fun and I'm fortunate that I fly for a decent living to pay the bills. There is no way on earth I could afford to do that full time. I have friends who do and they struggle. Seriously struggle.
The fact remains that you will almost never attract a decent standard of career instructor if that is all that schools/clubs are prepared to pay. I deliberately exclude the professional instructors at schools such as OATS and some of those who got into aviation at a later stage and are considered an unattractive proposition by the airlines (having said that, a middle-aged instructor friend has just been recruited for her first airline job).
If I were a full-time instructor at my current school, I would make approximately £15000 gross per year which would barely cover modest rent in the Home Counties, let alone a mortgage. Pension, what's that? Rest assured, I won't be instructing for a living as I wouldn't be able to stay in my current house (which isn't exactly Blenheim Palace anyway).
Sadly, anyone with talent follows the market and heads for the cash (airlines) at the first opportunity. Market forces. I appreciate there are always exceptions that prove the rule (usually with some other form of income) but there are a large number who remain who are either building hours for the airlines or are not suitable for them in the first place. That is not a basis for quality PPL instruction. Some of the suggestions already made would mitigate that. Bring back the BCPL maybe?
Ultimately though, I say again: Market Forces.
The fact remains that you will almost never attract a decent standard of career instructor if that is all that schools/clubs are prepared to pay. I deliberately exclude the professional instructors at schools such as OATS and some of those who got into aviation at a later stage and are considered an unattractive proposition by the airlines (having said that, a middle-aged instructor friend has just been recruited for her first airline job).
If I were a full-time instructor at my current school, I would make approximately £15000 gross per year which would barely cover modest rent in the Home Counties, let alone a mortgage. Pension, what's that? Rest assured, I won't be instructing for a living as I wouldn't be able to stay in my current house (which isn't exactly Blenheim Palace anyway).
Sadly, anyone with talent follows the market and heads for the cash (airlines) at the first opportunity. Market forces. I appreciate there are always exceptions that prove the rule (usually with some other form of income) but there are a large number who remain who are either building hours for the airlines or are not suitable for them in the first place. That is not a basis for quality PPL instruction. Some of the suggestions already made would mitigate that. Bring back the BCPL maybe?
Ultimately though, I say again: Market Forces.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It won't stop fATPL's becoming instructors and it may mean that they finally get paid properly as well
Dream on ! I fail to see how removing the requirement for CPL will suddenly increase wages and allow us all to drive around in Bentleys ?
I do agree that if the exams are not relevant then the exams should be changed
SaS and Beagle - This is a theme that you guys have been banging on about for a long time now in perfect unison, suspect that you are CFI's or club managers (or both). If you chant constantly then others may well take up the same chanting but come on be honest .....how will it really improve quality of teaching and make us all rich (well unless you are a club owner, CFI or manager perhaps).
Dream on ! I fail to see how removing the requirement for CPL will suddenly increase wages and allow us all to drive around in Bentleys ?
I do agree that if the exams are not relevant then the exams should be changed
SaS and Beagle - This is a theme that you guys have been banging on about for a long time now in perfect unison, suspect that you are CFI's or club managers (or both). If you chant constantly then others may well take up the same chanting but come on be honest .....how will it really improve quality of teaching and make us all rich (well unless you are a club owner, CFI or manager perhaps).
Tabs please !
Originally Posted by Human Factor
(having said that, a middle-aged instructor friend has just been recruited for her first airline job)
She parties with the very best of them matey and could show most of us a clean pair of heels !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get instructing paid properly, it needs to be seen as a career in itself, rather than a stepping stone. This will never happen with most fATPL holders, why? Because they have spent many many thousands of pounds to become an airline pilot, rather than an FI.
Someone who is desperate to get a foot on the ladder is more likely to accept being taken advantage of, for proof of this, just look at F/O's in Ryanair and other places that insist on people paying for ratings. They are willing to be shafted just to get some experience.
There should be nothing to stop someone who holds an fATPL from becoming an FI, some make excellent instructors, but we need to keep this industry ticking over as the schools and students require, rather than at the whims of airline recruitment.
The chaos that is caused by FI's leaving has to be seen to be believed and with the current rate of recruitment, we are starting to see a real shortage of instructors, both experienced and inexperienced.
I don't want to put fATPL's out of work, I was one once and I hope I did a good job, but when the call to go to an airline came, I didn't think twice and was gone within a couple of days, leaving massive holes in the schedule and gaps in people's subsequent training.
I'm not proud of it, but what else could I have done when I got the call and was told I was starting a type course on the Monday? (That was on a Friday afternoon.)
As a CFI the most important thing to me is the quality of training we provide and to be honest I couldn't give two hoots what licence any of my FI's have as long as they teach to the highest standard. I never want to see a time where FI's cannot get paid. That would defeat the whole purpose to me.
This debate is not as simple as just removing the need to have a CPL to get paid. I have laid out my opinion which I think would be best for the industry as a whole, not just for FI's looking for the first step along the career path.
Someone who is desperate to get a foot on the ladder is more likely to accept being taken advantage of, for proof of this, just look at F/O's in Ryanair and other places that insist on people paying for ratings. They are willing to be shafted just to get some experience.
There should be nothing to stop someone who holds an fATPL from becoming an FI, some make excellent instructors, but we need to keep this industry ticking over as the schools and students require, rather than at the whims of airline recruitment.
The chaos that is caused by FI's leaving has to be seen to be believed and with the current rate of recruitment, we are starting to see a real shortage of instructors, both experienced and inexperienced.
I don't want to put fATPL's out of work, I was one once and I hope I did a good job, but when the call to go to an airline came, I didn't think twice and was gone within a couple of days, leaving massive holes in the schedule and gaps in people's subsequent training.
I'm not proud of it, but what else could I have done when I got the call and was told I was starting a type course on the Monday? (That was on a Friday afternoon.)
As a CFI the most important thing to me is the quality of training we provide and to be honest I couldn't give two hoots what licence any of my FI's have as long as they teach to the highest standard. I never want to see a time where FI's cannot get paid. That would defeat the whole purpose to me.
This debate is not as simple as just removing the need to have a CPL to get paid. I have laid out my opinion which I think would be best for the industry as a whole, not just for FI's looking for the first step along the career path.