FI market in UK
Say again slowly,
The requirement for instructors to hold a professional licence came in 1988 with the introduction of the BCPL (which for those not familiar with it was effectively a "frozen CPL", enabling holders to be paid for aerial work or limited public transport flying with less than 700 hrs). At the time it made no difference to salaries and I somehow doubt that after 19 years it is now doing so. I may be wrong (as I often am), but having talked to a couple of CFIs and club owners recently I suspect salaries are going up because of the shortage of experienced instructors. You're right, it has nothing to do with PPL instructors.
At no time did I mention unpaid PPL instructors. The instructor ratings which used to be attached to a PPL permitted the holder to be renumerated for aerial work consisting of instructing only, provided that both the instructor and student were members of the same flying club or group. If this rating was reintroduced, with some revision to the technical knowledge which could be pitched at a lower level than CPL/ATPL but higher than PPL (possibly similar to the old PPL/IR exam level) there is no reason that PPL holders couldn't be useful instructors, and there are many out there who would like to give something back to light aviation rather than using it as a stepping stone.
Whilst it is nice to think that CPL holders make better instructors, the accident statistics seem to prove otherwise. At the last renewal seminar I attended a presentation was given which included accident statistics for PPL holders now as opposed to the 1980s. There was an almost identical proportion of stall/spin, CFIT, landing, running out of fuel etc which would indicate that the fact that all instructors bar a few with grandfather rights now hold professional licences has made no difference at all to the product that flying schools are producing. This doesn't mean that PPL instructors would be better, just that they would probably be no worse.
The requirement for instructors to hold a professional licence came in 1988 with the introduction of the BCPL (which for those not familiar with it was effectively a "frozen CPL", enabling holders to be paid for aerial work or limited public transport flying with less than 700 hrs). At the time it made no difference to salaries and I somehow doubt that after 19 years it is now doing so. I may be wrong (as I often am), but having talked to a couple of CFIs and club owners recently I suspect salaries are going up because of the shortage of experienced instructors. You're right, it has nothing to do with PPL instructors.
At no time did I mention unpaid PPL instructors. The instructor ratings which used to be attached to a PPL permitted the holder to be renumerated for aerial work consisting of instructing only, provided that both the instructor and student were members of the same flying club or group. If this rating was reintroduced, with some revision to the technical knowledge which could be pitched at a lower level than CPL/ATPL but higher than PPL (possibly similar to the old PPL/IR exam level) there is no reason that PPL holders couldn't be useful instructors, and there are many out there who would like to give something back to light aviation rather than using it as a stepping stone.
Whilst it is nice to think that CPL holders make better instructors, the accident statistics seem to prove otherwise. At the last renewal seminar I attended a presentation was given which included accident statistics for PPL holders now as opposed to the 1980s. There was an almost identical proportion of stall/spin, CFIT, landing, running out of fuel etc which would indicate that the fact that all instructors bar a few with grandfather rights now hold professional licences has made no difference at all to the product that flying schools are producing. This doesn't mean that PPL instructors would be better, just that they would probably be no worse.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good FI is a good FI whether they hold a PPL or CPL. My argument is that you have a generally higher standard of candidate with someone who has jumped through the hoops. They certainly have demonstrated a higher level of commitment.
I do think that the level of training in general is pretty poor throughout the industry, but I think the solution is to have full time long term FI's earning a respectable salary, rather than having an influx of "new" FI's.
To me it smacks of a cheap fix and that long term, the issue of salary is more important.
Market forces are pushing up salaries, having a load of PPL FI's will end up stopping this and maybe even reversing this trend.
The current system is not very good, but this isn't the way to fix it.
I do think that the level of training in general is pretty poor throughout the industry, but I think the solution is to have full time long term FI's earning a respectable salary, rather than having an influx of "new" FI's.
To me it smacks of a cheap fix and that long term, the issue of salary is more important.
Market forces are pushing up salaries, having a load of PPL FI's will end up stopping this and maybe even reversing this trend.
The current system is not very good, but this isn't the way to fix it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI market in UK
It has been a little while since I posted, but some of you may remember the proposals I put forward for the introduction of a dedicated Flying Instructor licence or qualification. This would not require the passing of CPL exams but would have its own specifically focussed essay-style pre-entry test to test the knowledge of the candidate and then focused subject exams specific to teaching and the psychology of learning, plus all the admin, legal and regulatory stuff to be studied for during the FI course. The course would be longer than the existing FI course to take account of the lack of CPL course but if someone had a CPL they would be credited with some hours. I also suggested certain other types of credits such as teaching experience or military FI credits.
I echo many of the posts on this Forum with concerns about producing a dedicated and professional bunch of career instructors and spend my life trying to turn the raw material currently provided into just those kind of people. As a provider to the industry of FI(R)s, I do find it disappointing that some of the great instructors I have trained then leave within a few months for the airlines simply for the salary. I know many instructors who would far rather stay as instructors than fly the anti-social hours but have to opt for the airlines in order to pay the bills.
I believe that there are many factors affecting the whole process at the moment and one of these is the total lack of financial support from the airline industry, which is after all the net beneficiary of the training equation. If the airlines had to pay a training levy every time they took a recruit out of the instructor market, then we would soon have a big enough pot to provide better salaries for the career instructors and to subsidise the training of the future airline pilots. I know that the airlines will say they haven't the money because it is all so cut-throat out there. But my answer would be - charge a proper price for the tickets and stop this nonsense of cheap fares.
I echo many of the posts on this Forum with concerns about producing a dedicated and professional bunch of career instructors and spend my life trying to turn the raw material currently provided into just those kind of people. As a provider to the industry of FI(R)s, I do find it disappointing that some of the great instructors I have trained then leave within a few months for the airlines simply for the salary. I know many instructors who would far rather stay as instructors than fly the anti-social hours but have to opt for the airlines in order to pay the bills.
I believe that there are many factors affecting the whole process at the moment and one of these is the total lack of financial support from the airline industry, which is after all the net beneficiary of the training equation. If the airlines had to pay a training levy every time they took a recruit out of the instructor market, then we would soon have a big enough pot to provide better salaries for the career instructors and to subsidise the training of the future airline pilots. I know that the airlines will say they haven't the money because it is all so cut-throat out there. But my answer would be - charge a proper price for the tickets and stop this nonsense of cheap fares.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, I still fail to see (after 23 years of holding an instructors rating), what value a CPL or ATPL has over a PPL as the basic licence for an instructor - and I started out instructing with a PPL and now hold an ATPL.
Poor example, I know, but you get the drift.....ish?
Okay then: It is all about embarking on a structured course of study and achieving. If you have never done that then how the hell can you preach the gospel to those who are learning? I played music at a professional level, I never took one music exam, although I might be a flying instructor I would never dream of assuming I could teach what I know about music after a 4 week course in teaching methods. Much less dive in and take work away from a music teacher who has studied music theory in great depth through sheer hard graft and personal sacrifice via a universally recognised authority, not via praxis, such was my own musical knowledge gained and one suspects the majority of potential instructors who only possess the PPL.
VFE.
Last edited by VFE; 25th Apr 2007 at 18:43.
VFE,
An interesting analogy - let's take it a little bit further. Imagine that you had learnt to play the piano for a hobby, and over, say, ten years you had improved your piano playing skills learning different disciplines (I'm not a pianist or musician of any sort but maybe a little concert pianistising, and some honkey-tonk and reggae and jazz and blues). You now thought you would like to help some other budding pianists to learn these things, but would like to earn some money for doing so. But now you were told that it didn't matter how good you were at playing the piano, you couldn't be paid as a piano teacher, but someone who hadn't even touched a keyboard until 18 months previously and had only played it for 170 hours and wasn't interested in teaching except that it would get them some more hours in their pianists log book would be allowed to, because they had done a concentrated groundschool course in the theory of piano construction, none of which your budding pianists had the slightest interest in.
When I started instructing I had about 600 hours total time which included all of the things I mentioned in my previous post (aeros, tailwheel, grass strips, PFA etc etc). In the 4000 hours of instructing which I then did before taking the CPL written exams and flight test I cannot remember a single PPL student asking me about polar stereographic charts or decca navigators or any of the arcane subjects covered in the CPL or ATPL written exams, however the PPL/IR studies were quite useful for a little extra depth teaching IMC ratings.
Whatever you say, I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot so has decided to do an instructor course would be any better at instructing when they started than I was. As I remember there is no teaching and learning section to the CPL so their teaching qualification and experience would only be that from the instructor course, ie the same as I had as a PPL instructor.
One thing I had failed to realise, however, is that a PPL course is about embarking on a structured course of study and achieving. I had always thought it was about helping people to achieve their ambitions and enjoy themselves whilst doing so - so maybe you're right and I have missed a point somewhere...
An interesting analogy - let's take it a little bit further. Imagine that you had learnt to play the piano for a hobby, and over, say, ten years you had improved your piano playing skills learning different disciplines (I'm not a pianist or musician of any sort but maybe a little concert pianistising, and some honkey-tonk and reggae and jazz and blues). You now thought you would like to help some other budding pianists to learn these things, but would like to earn some money for doing so. But now you were told that it didn't matter how good you were at playing the piano, you couldn't be paid as a piano teacher, but someone who hadn't even touched a keyboard until 18 months previously and had only played it for 170 hours and wasn't interested in teaching except that it would get them some more hours in their pianists log book would be allowed to, because they had done a concentrated groundschool course in the theory of piano construction, none of which your budding pianists had the slightest interest in.
When I started instructing I had about 600 hours total time which included all of the things I mentioned in my previous post (aeros, tailwheel, grass strips, PFA etc etc). In the 4000 hours of instructing which I then did before taking the CPL written exams and flight test I cannot remember a single PPL student asking me about polar stereographic charts or decca navigators or any of the arcane subjects covered in the CPL or ATPL written exams, however the PPL/IR studies were quite useful for a little extra depth teaching IMC ratings.
Whatever you say, I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot so has decided to do an instructor course would be any better at instructing when they started than I was. As I remember there is no teaching and learning section to the CPL so their teaching qualification and experience would only be that from the instructor course, ie the same as I had as a PPL instructor.
One thing I had failed to realise, however, is that a PPL course is about embarking on a structured course of study and achieving. I had always thought it was about helping people to achieve their ambitions and enjoy themselves whilst doing so - so maybe you're right and I have missed a point somewhere...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI market in UK
The other thing that nobody has mentioned is that the guy or girl who does the fATPL is not actually very suitable to be a mentor of the prospective PPL student as he or she has not held a PPL and never done any of the fun things like aeros or tailwheel or landing on farmstrips, or fly-ins or crossed the channel for lunch and shopping in Le Touquet etc. Because they have done an integrated professionally focused course designed to teach them how to be an airline pilot, the element of fun and enjoyment is likely to be lacking together with spontaneity and imagination.
(Could this be the reason why so many people give up learning to fly these days or give up so soon after their licence - because they are not shown the fun things, nor what they can do in flying apart from drive a big steel tube full of punters drinking and swearing...)
I have to reiterate that I would like to see more experienced pilots becoming instructors who have flown lots of types and been to lots of places, tried out all types of aviation. In an ideal world the perfect instructor would have flown hundreds of hours through many seasons before starting to teach. Although I only had about 4-500 hours when I became an instructor 15 years ago I had already flown up to the Arctic circle and around Iceland and also through Europe, the Baltic republics and Scandinavia, started learning aerobatics and soloed two tailwheel types. I had also been hanggliding and in a helicopter, all of which (I like to think) gave me some worthwhile experience to offer back to my students. I have continued to add to my broad experience by flying 70 types to more than 350 landing sites and airfields, now teach aerobatics and helicopter PPL as well as the more usual ratings and FI course.
These days the prospective instructors seem to have done little more than the bare minimum and only ever flown a PA28 and the MEP variant on which they do their IR. It would be a better system if at least we reverted to the pre-JAR regime of a BCPL and nobody did their IR till they had sufficient hours. Then the prospective instructors could afford to do some fun flying instead and wait till later for the massive expenditure on a rating that useless to a PPL instructor and costs them a huge amount to maintain.
(Could this be the reason why so many people give up learning to fly these days or give up so soon after their licence - because they are not shown the fun things, nor what they can do in flying apart from drive a big steel tube full of punters drinking and swearing...)
I have to reiterate that I would like to see more experienced pilots becoming instructors who have flown lots of types and been to lots of places, tried out all types of aviation. In an ideal world the perfect instructor would have flown hundreds of hours through many seasons before starting to teach. Although I only had about 4-500 hours when I became an instructor 15 years ago I had already flown up to the Arctic circle and around Iceland and also through Europe, the Baltic republics and Scandinavia, started learning aerobatics and soloed two tailwheel types. I had also been hanggliding and in a helicopter, all of which (I like to think) gave me some worthwhile experience to offer back to my students. I have continued to add to my broad experience by flying 70 types to more than 350 landing sites and airfields, now teach aerobatics and helicopter PPL as well as the more usual ratings and FI course.
These days the prospective instructors seem to have done little more than the bare minimum and only ever flown a PA28 and the MEP variant on which they do their IR. It would be a better system if at least we reverted to the pre-JAR regime of a BCPL and nobody did their IR till they had sufficient hours. Then the prospective instructors could afford to do some fun flying instead and wait till later for the massive expenditure on a rating that useless to a PPL instructor and costs them a huge amount to maintain.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concede Excrab and Lady in Red' points.
I think the question therefore falls to attitude. Agreed?
Perhaps tougher vetting at (and I use the word losely) "interview" stage *might* weed out those individuals to whom you refer.
I wouldn't know.... seriously.... I've worked at 3 schools now (albeit during just 10 months) but never met a sloppy one, and that's probably down to the fact I was too busy making sure I was doing my own job.
Agreed - I met many who were very interested in sending off their CV's to airlines but even so, them being the determined souls they were, they still upheld the ethos of good and proper flight instruction so maybe I haven't seen enough to know how much I don't yet know. It's possible I guess. What is your opinion because I'm foxed? Nobody I meet at the airfields on a daily basis expresses these views, you see.
VFE.
I think the question therefore falls to attitude. Agreed?
Perhaps tougher vetting at (and I use the word losely) "interview" stage *might* weed out those individuals to whom you refer.
I wouldn't know.... seriously.... I've worked at 3 schools now (albeit during just 10 months) but never met a sloppy one, and that's probably down to the fact I was too busy making sure I was doing my own job.
Agreed - I met many who were very interested in sending off their CV's to airlines but even so, them being the determined souls they were, they still upheld the ethos of good and proper flight instruction so maybe I haven't seen enough to know how much I don't yet know. It's possible I guess. What is your opinion because I'm foxed? Nobody I meet at the airfields on a daily basis expresses these views, you see.
VFE.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFE your experience matches very closely with my own, and I've been teaching for over 9 years now at many different schools across the country.
I have met the occasional atrocious hour builder, but they have been in a massive minority. In fact I can only think of 2.
The "extras" mentioned such as tail wheel, grass strip, aero's etc. aren't something you average fATPL holder will know much about, but if a school takes them on and wants them to teach it, then common sense dictates that they should be trained.
When a new FI starts teaching, they aren't going to know it all and nor should they be expected to. No other job expects newly qualified inexperienced staff to be able to do everything without further training.
If you want to have an experienced and knowledgeable member of staff, they need on-going training (Continuous Professional Development). All other professions invest in their staff and it pays off long term. FI's don't even get paid properly in the first place, so what chance is there of a school actually paying for training for their FI's?
Again, if there were long term professional PPL FI's, then this may happen as schools are more likely to reap a reward long term.
How is any of this your average fATPL's fault? They are just trying to make a go of their career and if no-one is going to look after them, then why should they have any loyalty?
Of course they are going to run at the first chance of a properly paid job. I did and I don't feel guilty about it since I was being paid a pittance. I felt bad for my students and tried to ease the transition as much as possible, but I wasn't fussed about the school, even though I really enjoyed the job and it was a very nice place to work.
My goal was to get into an airline at the time and let's face it as a 21 year old fATPL, what did anyone expect? It's not as if the school didn't know that when they hired me.
I have met the occasional atrocious hour builder, but they have been in a massive minority. In fact I can only think of 2.
The "extras" mentioned such as tail wheel, grass strip, aero's etc. aren't something you average fATPL holder will know much about, but if a school takes them on and wants them to teach it, then common sense dictates that they should be trained.
When a new FI starts teaching, they aren't going to know it all and nor should they be expected to. No other job expects newly qualified inexperienced staff to be able to do everything without further training.
If you want to have an experienced and knowledgeable member of staff, they need on-going training (Continuous Professional Development). All other professions invest in their staff and it pays off long term. FI's don't even get paid properly in the first place, so what chance is there of a school actually paying for training for their FI's?
Again, if there were long term professional PPL FI's, then this may happen as schools are more likely to reap a reward long term.
How is any of this your average fATPL's fault? They are just trying to make a go of their career and if no-one is going to look after them, then why should they have any loyalty?
Of course they are going to run at the first chance of a properly paid job. I did and I don't feel guilty about it since I was being paid a pittance. I felt bad for my students and tried to ease the transition as much as possible, but I wasn't fussed about the school, even though I really enjoyed the job and it was a very nice place to work.
My goal was to get into an airline at the time and let's face it as a 21 year old fATPL, what did anyone expect? It's not as if the school didn't know that when they hired me.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points SAS,
The point being as instructors: we wanna see folks progress into those azure skies and experience the ultimate freedom. No politics up there, right?
VFE.
The point being as instructors: we wanna see folks progress into those azure skies and experience the ultimate freedom. No politics up there, right?
VFE.
VFE and SAS,
All good points - I am not trying to criticise the newly qualified FI (r) - the fault lies in the system which was changed from one which had worked perfectly well since the 1930s just to attempt to bring us in to line with the rest of Europe, and in the airlines refusal to invest in training.
VFE is quite right - as a PPL holding instructor the flying club I worked for was quite happy to pay for the add on ratings because it gave them more flexibility to offer further training for PPL holders, and they knew that I was going to be with them for a considerable period of time as I had been a member for about seven years and they knew that I had no interest in being an airline pilot and wasn't qualified to be one anyway. He (or she) is also quite correct about tougther vetting - there is no reason that a PPL holder shouldn't be able to achieve the same standards of flying as a CPL holder prior to commencing an instructor course, however that could be done without having to spend £50k on an integrated course - even if you added the SEP CPL module to the start of the FIC course and charged £10k for the whole thing it would make the rating far more accessible than it is at the moment if there was no need to be involved with the CPL/ATPL ground school and CAA fees.
Lady in red is correct in her last paragraph - the old system where you needed 700hrs to be exempt the CPL approved course and could get your ATPL issued with 1500 hours as long as you had a multi-engine (not multi-crew) type rating (this was in the days before SEP/MEP for CPLs) meant that most instructors stayed in the business for longer and could progress further without massive expenditure. The only money I ever borrowed when I finally decided that I would have to find a commercial job to pay the mortgage was about £3k for the IR (I got the aircraft cheap through the club and a friend did the instructing).
Unfortunately we will never see a return to the old system as it didn't fit in with the JAR Brusscillian model. But I see no problem with paid PPL instructors. Doing it for nothing is a different thing altogether and I agree with you all that this is totally wrong, for the reasons everyone on here has already given.
All good points - I am not trying to criticise the newly qualified FI (r) - the fault lies in the system which was changed from one which had worked perfectly well since the 1930s just to attempt to bring us in to line with the rest of Europe, and in the airlines refusal to invest in training.
VFE is quite right - as a PPL holding instructor the flying club I worked for was quite happy to pay for the add on ratings because it gave them more flexibility to offer further training for PPL holders, and they knew that I was going to be with them for a considerable period of time as I had been a member for about seven years and they knew that I had no interest in being an airline pilot and wasn't qualified to be one anyway. He (or she) is also quite correct about tougther vetting - there is no reason that a PPL holder shouldn't be able to achieve the same standards of flying as a CPL holder prior to commencing an instructor course, however that could be done without having to spend £50k on an integrated course - even if you added the SEP CPL module to the start of the FIC course and charged £10k for the whole thing it would make the rating far more accessible than it is at the moment if there was no need to be involved with the CPL/ATPL ground school and CAA fees.
Lady in red is correct in her last paragraph - the old system where you needed 700hrs to be exempt the CPL approved course and could get your ATPL issued with 1500 hours as long as you had a multi-engine (not multi-crew) type rating (this was in the days before SEP/MEP for CPLs) meant that most instructors stayed in the business for longer and could progress further without massive expenditure. The only money I ever borrowed when I finally decided that I would have to find a commercial job to pay the mortgage was about £3k for the IR (I got the aircraft cheap through the club and a friend did the instructing).
Unfortunately we will never see a return to the old system as it didn't fit in with the JAR Brusscillian model. But I see no problem with paid PPL instructors. Doing it for nothing is a different thing altogether and I agree with you all that this is totally wrong, for the reasons everyone on here has already given.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Warks
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing that nobody has mentioned is that the guy or girl who does the fATPL is not actually very suitable to be a mentor of the prospective PPL student as he or she has not held a PPL
I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot
never done any of the fun things like aeros or tailwheel or landing on farmstrips, or fly-ins or crossed the channel for lunch and shopping in Le Touquet etc
I was hoping that maybe this thread would become a bit more positive after the departure of bose-x, but clearly not. It's nice to know that my kind are hated by our fellow instructors! Lucky my students don't have such chips on their shoulders,
TB
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Warks
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however that could be done without having to spend £50k on an integrated course - even if you added the SEP CPL module to the start of the FIC course and charged £10k for the whole thing it would make the rating far more accessible than it is at the moment if there was no need to be involved with the CPL/ATPL ground school and CAA fees.
I personally agree that the CPL theory is way over the top for people who purely want to instruct, so it seems we are pretty much in agreement that the system could be improved by dropping the theory requirement but keeping some sort of 'advanced flying' course akin to the CPL (but possibly without the instrument flying?) to bring potential PPL instructors' flying skills to a similar level to a CPL going into the FI rating.
By the way, polar stereographic charts are not part of the CPL syllabus, only the ATPL syllabus, so prospective instructors would not have to learn about them anyway. However, there is much in the CPL syllabus that is irrelevant, this was just a bad example for you to pick,
TB
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is, that nobody is saying that you need to do an integrated course to be an FI, but the graduates of such a course are finding that the airlines want them to have more hours than the bare minimum, so they then dream up the idea of becoming instructors...as I have said on previous threads, the truly determined instructor would not bother with an IR because he or she does not need it, nor would he or she bother with ATPL theory. But what we are seeing is those who have spent £70K at Oxford or Jerez, thinking they will get an immediate job with an airline, not actually achieving it. So we have a layer of fledgling wannabe airline pilots going for plan 'B', the FI course.
Funny some people's attitudes about lunch in Le Touquet - I have always found that it is practically the first thing most new PPLs want to do - to appease the wife who has put up with the new and expensive hobby for so many months - so they ask their instructor to do the cross channel check for them and take the wife for a nice lunch and a bit of (window) shopping...must have been there dozens of times...plus of course it is the cheapest hour building you can do as you can claim the fuel drawback to reduce the cost of the flying and the landing fees are very modest compared with most airfields in the south of England.
Funny some people's attitudes about lunch in Le Touquet - I have always found that it is practically the first thing most new PPLs want to do - to appease the wife who has put up with the new and expensive hobby for so many months - so they ask their instructor to do the cross channel check for them and take the wife for a nice lunch and a bit of (window) shopping...must have been there dozens of times...plus of course it is the cheapest hour building you can do as you can claim the fuel drawback to reduce the cost of the flying and the landing fees are very modest compared with most airfields in the south of England.
Token Bird,
I will concede the cost part, I have no figures available to hand for the cost of commercial training, CAA exam fees, CAA flight test fees, licence issue fees, hire of approved complex type for training and test etc, but I'm sure you are correct. The point is that a lot of PPL holders are put off by the amount of time required to reach the stage where they can even commence the FIC course.
However, please don't quote selectively from my posts - what I originally wrote was "I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot so has decided to do an instructor course" - as you always planned to instruct who are "your kind" which you feel to be hated. On the subject of selectivity, if you read what I wrote about the theory you will see that I said "arcane subjects covered in the CPL or ATPL written exams" Thus the polar stereographic chart was a perfectly valid example. I wasn't commenting on prospective instructors having to study them, but that having studied them had not made me any better as an instructor.
I don't think that anyone is talking about "rich PPL holders" here - although flying except at grass roots PFA / microlight level does tend to be the preserve of those who have a little more disposable income. For a PPL holder flying from an airfield such as Shoreham or Headcorn the cost of flying to Le Touqet for lunch is no more than that of flying from, for example, Wellesborne to Shobdon for a sunday lunch (excellent as they may be). And sadly many modular students (and I don't know who you are or how you built your hours so please don't get defensive about this) have built their hours by flying one type as cheaply as possibly over as short a calender time as possible, possibly not even in the UK) so still have little experience to offer the new PPL from the list of possible activities that Lady in Red and I listed.
I will concede the cost part, I have no figures available to hand for the cost of commercial training, CAA exam fees, CAA flight test fees, licence issue fees, hire of approved complex type for training and test etc, but I'm sure you are correct. The point is that a lot of PPL holders are put off by the amount of time required to reach the stage where they can even commence the FIC course.
However, please don't quote selectively from my posts - what I originally wrote was "I fail to understand how a 170 hr (f)ATPL holder who has been unable to find a job as an airline pilot so has decided to do an instructor course" - as you always planned to instruct who are "your kind" which you feel to be hated. On the subject of selectivity, if you read what I wrote about the theory you will see that I said "arcane subjects covered in the CPL or ATPL written exams" Thus the polar stereographic chart was a perfectly valid example. I wasn't commenting on prospective instructors having to study them, but that having studied them had not made me any better as an instructor.
I don't think that anyone is talking about "rich PPL holders" here - although flying except at grass roots PFA / microlight level does tend to be the preserve of those who have a little more disposable income. For a PPL holder flying from an airfield such as Shoreham or Headcorn the cost of flying to Le Touqet for lunch is no more than that of flying from, for example, Wellesborne to Shobdon for a sunday lunch (excellent as they may be). And sadly many modular students (and I don't know who you are or how you built your hours so please don't get defensive about this) have built their hours by flying one type as cheaply as possibly over as short a calender time as possible, possibly not even in the UK) so still have little experience to offer the new PPL from the list of possible activities that Lady in Red and I listed.
