PPL-FI Requirements changing with EASA?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pringle 1
Perhaps the standards were dropped when the requirement for 700 hours to gain a CPL were dropped? How many hours did you need for your CPL?
But I suppose that's different?
I have the greatest respect for those who "jump through the hoops" to get their CPL/fATPL + FIR, but just because they had to, doesn't mean it's the "right" way! We had PPL instructors years ago, and there were still career instructors. The standards of instruction were certainly not lower, and many would argue the standard was much higher! I'd love to see PPL FIR's back. I think we lost a great deal of our "soul" when the rules were changed. Flying clubs became flying schools, and the fun just seemed to drain away. Why do you think Microlight clubs have enjoyed such success over the past decade?
PPL FIR's should not be seen as a threat. They should be the backbone of our clubs and the familiar faces that don't up and leave when the first airline post beckons! Multi, IR, CPL instruction is all there for the devoted CPL FIR who wants to make a career of instructing. FI pay has always been crap! It was when there were PPL instructors, and it has been since there haven't (well not many). You could increase the cost of basic PPL instruction, but if you did, you'd just loose customers to Microlights and Gliding (or to aviation all together). Instead of moaning about the crappy wages, you'd be better off just biting the bullet, accepting it like most do and dream of the day you can get an airline pilots wage. Unfortunately what people are payed in various walks of life often doesn't reflect what they're worth!
SS
Perhaps the standards were dropped when the requirement for 700 hours to gain a CPL were dropped? How many hours did you need for your CPL?
But I suppose that's different?I have the greatest respect for those who "jump through the hoops" to get their CPL/fATPL + FIR, but just because they had to, doesn't mean it's the "right" way! We had PPL instructors years ago, and there were still career instructors. The standards of instruction were certainly not lower, and many would argue the standard was much higher! I'd love to see PPL FIR's back. I think we lost a great deal of our "soul" when the rules were changed. Flying clubs became flying schools, and the fun just seemed to drain away. Why do you think Microlight clubs have enjoyed such success over the past decade?
PPL FIR's should not be seen as a threat. They should be the backbone of our clubs and the familiar faces that don't up and leave when the first airline post beckons! Multi, IR, CPL instruction is all there for the devoted CPL FIR who wants to make a career of instructing. FI pay has always been crap! It was when there were PPL instructors, and it has been since there haven't (well not many). You could increase the cost of basic PPL instruction, but if you did, you'd just loose customers to Microlights and Gliding (or to aviation all together). Instead of moaning about the crappy wages, you'd be better off just biting the bullet, accepting it like most do and dream of the day you can get an airline pilots wage. Unfortunately what people are payed in various walks of life often doesn't reflect what they're worth!
SS
SS - one other point:
Currently, the airline wannabe has to obtain the CPL and FI Rating before being permitted to instruct for remuneration. Many will be sorely out of pocket for years, so will obviously jump at the first chance of an airline job and the opportunity to reduce their debt accordingly.
Whereas a PPL holder can build up pre-FI time as and when without having to give up any other 'day job', then embark upon the course. As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds.
Currently, the airline wannabe has to obtain the CPL and FI Rating before being permitted to instruct for remuneration. Many will be sorely out of pocket for years, so will obviously jump at the first chance of an airline job and the opportunity to reduce their debt accordingly.
Whereas a PPL holder can build up pre-FI time as and when without having to give up any other 'day job', then embark upon the course. As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I undertstand why a flying club manager or CFI may want these changes to put bums on seats. I also appreciate that 700 hour PPL may have more to offer than a 200 hour CPL. Beagle is not argung for the 700 hour PPL however. He is arguing for a 200 hour PPL without the CPL ground exams or class 1 medical, as per his post qouting Lasors. Yes, I'm sure we all know an experienced PPL who would make an excellent instructor. But what is stopping him or her doing the CPL exams and flight test? Money? In the case of the 200 hour PPL, perhaps this is the case. The 700 hour PPL would have difficulty saying they were short of cash. Please don't say they don't have the time. If they don't, how will they ever find time to instruct. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the ground exams? Need I say any more?
Beagle, Whopity et al, I hope I havn't misread your thoughts. As far as I can tell you are saying that a PPL with 200 hours flying around Florida including the long Navex etc is just suitable as a CPL with 200 hours. If so, there is something seriously wrong with the CPL syllabus and testing. After all it is the minimum requirement that is disputed issue here.
I couldn't agree more that P1 experience is invaluable, but this is an argument to increase the amount of P1 required, not reduce the training requirement. Incidentally Whopity your good 300 hour PPL FI student probably had at least 100 hours more P1 than the proposed minimum.
Shortstripper you may have a point about falling standards since the old 700 hour CPL requirement. My point is that some instructors here seem to be arguing for a futher reduction in the base level required to join the profession (I qualified under the old CAA system incidentally).
I wonder how many low hour PPL's there are out there sitting on their money intending to spend it on a 2 month trip to Florida so they can become a flying instructor. I wouldn't blame them for this. As VFE suggests, by then the market will be so short of 'suitable' candidates your local flying club won't be able to wait for Mr or Mrs 700 hours trained in the UK. The people who are holding back in hope are only making the shortage of instructors worse.
Lets not pretend this is anything other than a drop in standards to fill empty instructor positions. Necessary though it may be. It is for the industry (our employers) to argue their case, not us, as we are the only ones who stand to lose.
Beagle, Whopity et al, I hope I havn't misread your thoughts. As far as I can tell you are saying that a PPL with 200 hours flying around Florida including the long Navex etc is just suitable as a CPL with 200 hours. If so, there is something seriously wrong with the CPL syllabus and testing. After all it is the minimum requirement that is disputed issue here.
I couldn't agree more that P1 experience is invaluable, but this is an argument to increase the amount of P1 required, not reduce the training requirement. Incidentally Whopity your good 300 hour PPL FI student probably had at least 100 hours more P1 than the proposed minimum.
Shortstripper you may have a point about falling standards since the old 700 hour CPL requirement. My point is that some instructors here seem to be arguing for a futher reduction in the base level required to join the profession (I qualified under the old CAA system incidentally).
I wonder how many low hour PPL's there are out there sitting on their money intending to spend it on a 2 month trip to Florida so they can become a flying instructor. I wouldn't blame them for this. As VFE suggests, by then the market will be so short of 'suitable' candidates your local flying club won't be able to wait for Mr or Mrs 700 hours trained in the UK. The people who are holding back in hope are only making the shortage of instructors worse.
Lets not pretend this is anything other than a drop in standards to fill empty instructor positions. Necessary though it may be. It is for the industry (our employers) to argue their case, not us, as we are the only ones who stand to lose.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Near Penrith
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not pretend this is anything other than a drop in standards to fill empty instructor positions.
I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying.
I see no evidence that the old system, which did not require CPL knowledge, produced inferior FIs who in turn produced poorly trained PPLs. Au contraire, the usual consensus seems to be that the training was better in the old days. A return to the old system is eminently sensible and to be commended.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what is stopping him or her doing the CPL exams and flight test? Money? In the case of the 200 hour PPL, perhaps this is the case. The 700 hour PPL would have difficulty saying they were short of cash. Please don't say they don't have the time. If they don't, how will they ever find time to instruct. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the ground exams? Need I say any more?
Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course! In France PPL's teach and the French do not interpret the requirement to demonstrate CPL knowledge as having to pass the CPL ground exams ... so why do we here? I'd happily self study and take the exams if I didn't have to attend GS to do it ... again, this is somthing you didn't have to do before. The CPL exams have now been geared toward the fast track CPL / fATPL and the way they are layed down is absolutely irrellevent to PPL instruction. There must be a way to demonstrate in-depth knowledge for PPL instructors that doesn't mean you have to prove you can go on to be an airline pilot ... Many of us don't want too!
SS
Last edited by shortstripper; 14th Jan 2008 at 12:21.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 74
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm firmly of the opinion that one can't ever have too much theoretical knowledge of aviation related subjects to perform efficiently as a flying instructor. Agreed that one doesn't use a fraction of it on a day-to-day basis but, just occasionally, the student will ask a deep and penetrating question and it helps to be able to answer it.
As to PPL instructors, if they can achieve the required standard they will be a great asset to any FTO. A certain venerable gentleman, who was the doyen of FI examiners spent an entire career instructing on a PPL (and his theoretical knowledge was legendary).
If I have a discomfort about the well-being of the instructing trade it is wondering where the next generation of career instructors will come from. When I started in the late seventies an instructor with all the various teaching and examining credentials made a fairly modest salary but it was enough to service the mortgage on a reasonable home. Nowadays the financial rewards are still modest but the property values have raced ahead to the degree that only someone with independent means can realistically contemplate a career in instruction. Worrying.
As to PPL instructors, if they can achieve the required standard they will be a great asset to any FTO. A certain venerable gentleman, who was the doyen of FI examiners spent an entire career instructing on a PPL (and his theoretical knowledge was legendary).
If I have a discomfort about the well-being of the instructing trade it is wondering where the next generation of career instructors will come from. When I started in the late seventies an instructor with all the various teaching and examining credentials made a fairly modest salary but it was enough to service the mortgage on a reasonable home. Nowadays the financial rewards are still modest but the property values have raced ahead to the degree that only someone with independent means can realistically contemplate a career in instruction. Worrying.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowadays the financial rewards are still modest but the property values have raced ahead to the degree that only someone with independent means can realistically contemplate a career in instruction.
SS
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is talk around my parts that rather like the IMC rating the BCPL may well be about to go. My excellent source (an FIE) informs me that the CAA and EASA are steadfastly at the moment sticking to the line that if you are a BCPL holder and you want to continue to be remunerated for working as an FI you will have to go to Gatwick and take the CPL writtens.
I can think of one or two experienced PPL's at my club who would make very good instructors and others who definetely would not. There is a great difference between making the decision to go flying and making the decision to go flying with a student, something not well understood by a lot of PPL's. All very good going off in your own well maintained Warrior or Arrow with full IFR kit Garmins etc on a marginal day. Very different in a knackered old Cessna with just a VOR.
The issue people like myself have is the old BCPL system enabled people to get into a position to be paid for flying without having taking any more exams then those they are to teach, and have IMC priveleges embedded for life in their license without the need to ever take an IMC renewal. The rest of us have had to pay large sums of money to get into the position to earn not alot and have to pay out each year to keep our IR's current. There are also those who of course abuse their BCPL and get remunerated for things that they should not be getting remunerated for, taking yet more money away from those of us who hold full, proper, professional pilots licenses.
I can think of one or two experienced PPL's at my club who would make very good instructors and others who definetely would not. There is a great difference between making the decision to go flying and making the decision to go flying with a student, something not well understood by a lot of PPL's. All very good going off in your own well maintained Warrior or Arrow with full IFR kit Garmins etc on a marginal day. Very different in a knackered old Cessna with just a VOR.
The issue people like myself have is the old BCPL system enabled people to get into a position to be paid for flying without having taking any more exams then those they are to teach, and have IMC priveleges embedded for life in their license without the need to ever take an IMC renewal. The rest of us have had to pay large sums of money to get into the position to earn not alot and have to pay out each year to keep our IR's current. There are also those who of course abuse their BCPL and get remunerated for things that they should not be getting remunerated for, taking yet more money away from those of us who hold full, proper, professional pilots licenses.
Last edited by timzsta; 16th Jan 2008 at 19:07.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
My excellent source informs me that the CAA and EASA are steadfastly at the moment sticking to the line that if you are a BCPL holder and you want to continue to be remunerated for working as an FI you will have to go to Gatwick and take the CPL writtens.
Cheers,
TheOddOne
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 think you'll find there are EU laws on making people unemployable in the manner being suggested, at the very least there will be compensation due.
If the above mentioned proposal to make BCPL holders with an FI rating unemployed goes through prepare to see the state of instructing go downhill DRASTICALLY very quickly. It is a nonsensical idea tantamount to putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.
EASA? I've sh1t 'em!
VFE.
If the above mentioned proposal to make BCPL holders with an FI rating unemployed goes through prepare to see the state of instructing go downhill DRASTICALLY very quickly. It is a nonsensical idea tantamount to putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.
EASA? I've sh1t 'em!
VFE.
Guys, gals and...others. Would your BCPL FIs be OK to accept an EAS PPL/FI Rating, as long as it conferred the right to receive remuneration?
Just a question - because I think that's what will be on offer.
Just a question - because I think that's what will be on offer.
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 cannot speak for them personally but IMC instructing aside, I do believe the fear of not being remunerated is what scares most so yes, I would imagine they'd be appeased with one of those EASA doobriwazzanames... so long as they don't have to go back to the classroom!
VFE.
VFE.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
If you did the CPL writtens and took the flight test why didn't you apply for a full CPL in the first place?
...because under the old 3-tier medical system, I could only get a Class II, not a Class I, due eyesight correction required (JUST outside the limit). The BCPL only needed an old Class II as it was for all types of aerial work, not Public Transport. The CPL/ATPL at the time (1989) required a CAA Class I. The 'new' JAR Class I correction requirements changed recently, bringing me comfortably INSIDE the limit, so I now have a full JAR Class I medical, initial issue at the age of 57! (So I guess I must be fairly fit & healthy).
TheOddOne
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Beagle, I thought you were against hours builders who were aiming at the airlines. If so why say this:
"As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds."
Make your mind up! Who do you want, hours builders or committed instructors!
Westmorland. You say:
"I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying."
If you are so clever do the exams. It may save embarrassment when your PPL wannabe airline pilot asks you a difficult question..... If you can't answer them perhaps you could ask a CPL qualified instructor. (who will be paid the same if he or she is instructing to PPL level). I would rather fly all the time as well but there is this thing called the long briefing I have to do which seems to help the student as well!
Shortstripper. You say:
"Why do you think an experienced PPL can't argue they're short of cash? I am, I have a poorly payed job (for what the hours I do and the qualifications I have ... so it's not exclusive to FI's) and a large family. I have managed to continue to fly for the last 20 years by various means, but I sure as hell can say that I am short of cash Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course!
Sorry, it was a sweeping statement to say that all PPL's with a few hours under thier belts must be loaded. I too have been scratching around for the last 20 years picking up an hour here and an hour there.
I understand it is difficult, but I completed my ground exams whilst in full time employment by correspondence course . I completed My FI(R) course whilst in full time employment on my days off and holidays. I also have kids and have had to sacrifice time with them and my wife to get where I am. I have to instruct part-time as I need a full time job outside aviation to pay the mortgage and feed the kids.
Almost time to put the violin back in it's case........ I fear those who will suffer most from Beagle's proposals are committed, weekend, CPL qualified PPL instructors.....Like me!
Beagle, I thought you were against hours builders who were aiming at the airlines. If so why say this:
"As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds."
Make your mind up! Who do you want, hours builders or committed instructors!
Westmorland. You say:
"I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying."
If you are so clever do the exams. It may save embarrassment when your PPL wannabe airline pilot asks you a difficult question..... If you can't answer them perhaps you could ask a CPL qualified instructor. (who will be paid the same if he or she is instructing to PPL level). I would rather fly all the time as well but there is this thing called the long briefing I have to do which seems to help the student as well!
Shortstripper. You say:
"Why do you think an experienced PPL can't argue they're short of cash? I am, I have a poorly payed job (for what the hours I do and the qualifications I have ... so it's not exclusive to FI's) and a large family. I have managed to continue to fly for the last 20 years by various means, but I sure as hell can say that I am short of cash
Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course! Sorry, it was a sweeping statement to say that all PPL's with a few hours under thier belts must be loaded. I too have been scratching around for the last 20 years picking up an hour here and an hour there.
I understand it is difficult, but I completed my ground exams whilst in full time employment by correspondence course . I completed My FI(R) course whilst in full time employment on my days off and holidays. I also have kids and have had to sacrifice time with them and my wife to get where I am. I have to instruct part-time as I need a full time job outside aviation to pay the mortgage and feed the kids.
Almost time to put the violin back in it's case........ I fear those who will suffer most from Beagle's proposals are committed, weekend, CPL qualified PPL instructors.....Like me!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame none of you have mentioned the most important instructional quality, enthusiasm and a shame you cannot sit an examination for it. A student wants to sit by someone who is enthusiastic about teaching them to fly, it matters not one jot if that instructor can plot his way across the Atlantic or describe how an FMS works.
I have nothing against people wishing to join the airlines per se.
But having to pay back the costs of CPL and FI Rating is an enormous burden - and of course they'd be off to anyone offering them an airline post as soon as possible. Because of debt!
Whereas being able to hold some day job whilst building pre-entry hours for the PPL/FI course would be more affordable. Then recover the cost of the course by working as a PPL/FI. Once that's paid for, save for the CPL course - or take out a loan. Then no need to build hours after the CPL course, so off to an airline with all that CPL knowledge fresh in the mind....
But having to pay back the costs of CPL and FI Rating is an enormous burden - and of course they'd be off to anyone offering them an airline post as soon as possible. Because of debt!
Whereas being able to hold some day job whilst building pre-entry hours for the PPL/FI course would be more affordable. Then recover the cost of the course by working as a PPL/FI. Once that's paid for, save for the CPL course - or take out a loan. Then no need to build hours after the CPL course, so off to an airline with all that CPL knowledge fresh in the mind....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt about it. One day I want to fly for an airline. That is my aim. But I can tell you at the moment, nothing, nothing at all, beats the thrill of watching one of my students flying solo around the circuit, thinking "I and I alone have taught him how to do that".
This misnoma that modern day Instructors are just hours builders is horlicks. It maybe the ultimate desire to get into the Airlines but don't think for a minute please that whilst we are FI's we are 100% commited to the student and their development.
I put the students development and need first, second and third. Then it's the Flying Clubs need, then its my development as a professional pilot last and very last.
This misnoma that modern day Instructors are just hours builders is horlicks. It maybe the ultimate desire to get into the Airlines but don't think for a minute please that whilst we are FI's we are 100% commited to the student and their development.
I put the students development and need first, second and third. Then it's the Flying Clubs need, then its my development as a professional pilot last and very last.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the arguements here are a little off target. I'm one of the ones that had to go well over the top to become a career instructor and naturally would feel agrieved if those that follow could do the same job far quicker, far cheaper, for the same reward.
That said, the arguement is not with those individuals but with the regulators and their final salary pensions that make rules only to be undone when they don't suit. Someone, somewhere laid down that PPL FI's were not the they way to go so changed it all. Now apparently all that was wrong. Who made the decision, why, where are they now and if still inpost should be fired for getting it so wrong. I would so love a job with so much influence yet so little responsibility for the outcome of that influence.
-VERoC
That said, the arguement is not with those individuals but with the regulators and their final salary pensions that make rules only to be undone when they don't suit. Someone, somewhere laid down that PPL FI's were not the they way to go so changed it all. Now apparently all that was wrong. Who made the decision, why, where are they now and if still inpost should be fired for getting it so wrong. I would so love a job with so much influence yet so little responsibility for the outcome of that influence.
-VERoC