CPL/BCPL Introduction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL/BCPL Introduction
Hi Guys,
Could anybody please tell me in what year the requirement was introduced for intending FIs to possess either a CPL or a BCPL prior to taking the FI course?
Best regards,
Broomstick.
Could anybody please tell me in what year the requirement was introduced for intending FIs to possess either a CPL or a BCPL prior to taking the FI course?
Best regards,
Broomstick.
Moving On
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broomstick,
There is no requirement to hold a CPL licence before starting an FI course only having passed the CPL theory exams. You can add an FI rating onto a PPL although the pre entry hours requirements are slightly higher.
There is no requirement to hold a CPL licence before starting an FI course only having passed the CPL theory exams. You can add an FI rating onto a PPL although the pre entry hours requirements are slightly higher.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL/BCPL
Hi LFS,
Forgive me, but you have answered a question I haven't asked. My question is a historical question.
i.e. 'Could anybody please tell me in what year the requirement was introduced for intending FIs to possess either a CPL or a BCPL prior to taking the FI course?'
We are, of course talking about pre JAA days.
I have a feeling it was in the mid-eighties, but I could be wrong.
I am well aware of the present day requirements.
Nevertheless, thank you for taking the trouble to reply.
Broomstick.
Forgive me, but you have answered a question I haven't asked. My question is a historical question.
i.e. 'Could anybody please tell me in what year the requirement was introduced for intending FIs to possess either a CPL or a BCPL prior to taking the FI course?'
We are, of course talking about pre JAA days.
I have a feeling it was in the mid-eighties, but I could be wrong.
I am well aware of the present day requirements.
Nevertheless, thank you for taking the trouble to reply.
Broomstick.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BCPL
I too believe it was 1989. But once again, to emphasise, it was never a requirement to hold, as a minimum, a BCPL to be an Instructor. From the time that the BCPL was introduced the BCPL exams had to be passed before commencing an FIC. Then as now the Instructor Rating was always based on the PPL. Nothing ever changed in that regard. The Instructors that held the AFI/FI rating at the time of the BCPL introduction were issued with a 'grandfather right' to be able to continue to be paid. The grandfather rating given to pre-existing PPL Instructors who did not hold a commercial licence is a BCPL(R)
'Could anybody please tell me in what year the requirement was introduced for intending FIs to possess either a CPL or a BCPL prior to taking the FI course?'
ICAO Annex 1 has always specified CPL level knowledge as a pre-requisite to become a Flight Instructor. The UK did not apply this as it had an "equivalent" i.e. a Pre-entry examination, and a course of FI training. In approximately 1988, when the BCPL was introduced in line with the Annex 1 requirement for a 200 hour CPL, CPL theoretical knowledge was introduced in the UK as a requirement for all future FIs. The BCPL, CPL etc are only required for the purpose of "remuneration", an entirely different issue. On the introduction of the new theoretrical requirements; existing FIs operating on a PPL, were given a BCPL(Restricted) so that they could continue being remunerated as a grandfather right.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BCPL and CPL knowledge requirement.
Dear Whopity,
First of all, thank you for your reply to my post.
As you know, at present an intending FI has either;
a) to possess a full CPL (if he/she wants to be paid for his/her services as an instructor,) or
b) must at least have passed the CPL groundschool exams (if he/she doesn't wish to be paid).
From what you have written, clearly, this has a history founded in two entirely separate issues, namely;
i) the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 regarding a person's legal eligibility to train as an instructor per se, and
ii) the person's eligibility to receive payment for working as an instructor once having obtained the necessary rating.
I should like to be able to read up the history to this situation, in regard to both i) and ii) above.
Do you please know of any journal articles, books or other sources that I might look up to learn what the thinking was that led to the present situation?
Broomstick.
First of all, thank you for your reply to my post.
As you know, at present an intending FI has either;
a) to possess a full CPL (if he/she wants to be paid for his/her services as an instructor,) or
b) must at least have passed the CPL groundschool exams (if he/she doesn't wish to be paid).
From what you have written, clearly, this has a history founded in two entirely separate issues, namely;
i) the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 regarding a person's legal eligibility to train as an instructor per se, and
ii) the person's eligibility to receive payment for working as an instructor once having obtained the necessary rating.
I should like to be able to read up the history to this situation, in regard to both i) and ii) above.
Do you please know of any journal articles, books or other sources that I might look up to learn what the thinking was that led to the present situation?
Broomstick.
Broomstick
I think you will find that most of this was documented in AICs many of which are probably difficult to find now as they have all expired. The AIS may well have a copies of old AICs but could charge you to locate them. There are still copies of CAP 53 and CAP 54 in existence which date back to 1989, these contained the licensing requirements at that time. Every pilot undergoing training had a copy.
The issue of remuneration is totally flawed, the law (ANO) says you must have a professional licence to be remunerated, yet many pre-JAR helicopter instructors still teach on a PPL [there was no BCPL(H)], and all microlight instructors teach on a PPL and invariably earn more money than a SEP instructor.
I think you will find that most of this was documented in AICs many of which are probably difficult to find now as they have all expired. The AIS may well have a copies of old AICs but could charge you to locate them. There are still copies of CAP 53 and CAP 54 in existence which date back to 1989, these contained the licensing requirements at that time. Every pilot undergoing training had a copy.
The issue of remuneration is totally flawed, the law (ANO) says you must have a professional licence to be remunerated, yet many pre-JAR helicopter instructors still teach on a PPL [there was no BCPL(H)], and all microlight instructors teach on a PPL and invariably earn more money than a SEP instructor.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Near a very good pub in rural Oxfordshire :-)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The date was 1 October 1988; those PPLs whose Instructor Ratings were granted before this were awarded 'grandfather rights' Restricted BCPLs.
Which begs the question... in the intervening years (nearly 18) why haven't these individuals taken the exams and done the skills tests to at least prove their skills at the professional level?
The only real reason I can think of is medical (ie. the need to hold a Class One medical to hold a CPL), but those who - for whatever reason - could only ever hold an old Class 2 medical would have been granted a Class One (with an an 'aerial work only' restriction) with the advent of JAR, thus allowing them to qualify as professionals.
Which begs the question... in the intervening years (nearly 18) why haven't these individuals taken the exams and done the skills tests to at least prove their skills at the professional level?
The only real reason I can think of is medical (ie. the need to hold a Class One medical to hold a CPL), but those who - for whatever reason - could only ever hold an old Class 2 medical would have been granted a Class One (with an an 'aerial work only' restriction) with the advent of JAR, thus allowing them to qualify as professionals.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL/BCPL history
Thanks, Snakecharmer,
That's just the sort of information I was looking for.
Regarding those 'Restricted BCPL' instructors, could it not also be that these were people who;
a) looked upon their instructing as purely a hobby or passtime or
b) didn't want to instruct above PPL level or
c) foot the expense of getting a professional status that would not enable them to do anything they wanted to do but were not already doing?
Such people would be thus content to remain at their 'Restricted BCPL' status?
Back in the sixties, I knew an instructor briefly who spent most of his time instructing ATC 'flying scholarship' cadets on a PPL+FI. Then apparently, one day the RAF informed him that they now required him to have a CPL if he wished to continue training their cadets. He, however, had previously been an RAF pilot and had indeed flown for the RAF throughout a large part of WW2. Hence, he could not see the point of the CPL requirement in his case and packed the job in.
Broomstick.
That's just the sort of information I was looking for.
Regarding those 'Restricted BCPL' instructors, could it not also be that these were people who;
a) looked upon their instructing as purely a hobby or passtime or
b) didn't want to instruct above PPL level or
c) foot the expense of getting a professional status that would not enable them to do anything they wanted to do but were not already doing?
Such people would be thus content to remain at their 'Restricted BCPL' status?
Back in the sixties, I knew an instructor briefly who spent most of his time instructing ATC 'flying scholarship' cadets on a PPL+FI. Then apparently, one day the RAF informed him that they now required him to have a CPL if he wished to continue training their cadets. He, however, had previously been an RAF pilot and had indeed flown for the RAF throughout a large part of WW2. Hence, he could not see the point of the CPL requirement in his case and packed the job in.
Broomstick.
