PPL-FI Requirements changing with EASA?

[VFE]

Those sort of guys never get rooted out because they just rewrite the rules to keep themselves in!

As long as job & pay for existing instructors is under no threat from any changes to the system then I see no basis for complaint from us really.

Times change in aviation - deal with it.

VFE.

[Whopity]

The requirement for CPL level knowledge comes from ICAO Annex 1 For many years the UK treated the FIC and its pre-entry flight test as being equivalent to CPL level knowledge. It only changed when JAR-FCL loomed and it was assumed that Europe would require the UK to meet the ICAO CPL requirement in full. The UK aligned this requirement some 10 years ahead of JAR-FCL, and with it came the BCPL (Restricted) for aeroplanes but, the helicopter world never had an equivalent licence.

There has been a lot of talk of the merits of one system versus the other but what exactly does EASA plan? Whilst there are a number of rumours on this thread the following is the 1st draft LAFI privileges currently in EASA Part FCL

FCL.I.1.825 LAFI - Privileges and conditions (a) The privileges of the holder of an LAFI rating are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(1) a basic LAPL, in the case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(2) a LAPL, in the appropriate aircraft category;
(3) Class, type or group ratings to be endorsed on a LAPL, in the appropriate aircraft category;
(4) a night qualification in the appropriate aircraft category, provided such a qualification is held;
(5) towing and aerobatic qualifications in the appropriate aircraft category, provided such a qualification is held;
(6) cloud flying qualification, in the case of sailplanes, provided such a qualification is held
(7) Mountain ratings, provided such rating is held, in the appropriate aircraft category
(8) A LAFI rating, provided that the instructor has given instruction for at least 3 years

[BEagle]

Whopity, as I mentioned to you the other day, the information I have recently had confirmed is that EC states will file a variance from ICAO which will permit a PPL/FI to instruct for remuneration at PPL (not just LAPL) level without holding a CPL.

The LAFI would probably then become superfluous, as regards LAPL (Aeroplane) instruction.

So that no-one is confused by the forthcoming NPPL changes, it has been decided to include a clear statement in the AIC (agreed on Friday 25th Jan) that NO CHANGES have been introduced affecting the current requirements for instruction on SSEAs.

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

It seems that this is a done deal, if not yet ratified by the powers that be. Is this the case? I hope someone has done a risk assesment. It can get complicated when you deliberately drop standards...a field day for the lawyers out there.

Just so I now how long it is before my club start saying that they can't afford to pay me as much and that 21 year old Johnny is much more flexible than I, because he can turn up every weekend and even on some weekdays........do you know when the first new PPL instructors will be putting on their 4 gold bars and Transair wings?

Please could you also clarify, if you know, where an existing CPL qualified instructor will stand with medicals, if only instructing to PPL level?

I just hope we don't have a deep recession in the industry/economy. I remember what it was like after September the 11th when many part-timers were laid off .............until it suited the clubs to have them back again! If the recession deepens and you were a low hour PPL/FI, living at home with mum and dad and your club said they could only afford to pay £5 per hour with no retainer, I suspect you would accept it. I would not be able to justify the cost and time my instructing takes from my family. So much for the changes not having an impact on existing instructors!

One final question, please Beagle. Will your club be paying CPL qualified instructors the same rates as new PPL qualified ones or will you reward their extra experience and qualifications. A cheeky question I know, but I think it gets to the root of the issue.

NegativeROC - I agree with your thoughts on the reglulators......but they are ultimately driven (paid) by the industry.

[timzsta]

(8) seems interesting to me.... PPL/FI's teaching FIC???

[BEagle]

Pringle1 - we won't give a rat's about the licence held by the instructor as we'll only offer jobs to people who can prove that they have sound personal flying skills, acceptable interpersonal skills, the ability to impart instruction and the capacity to assess the student's flying.

We don't like precocious idiots with Captain Kellog wings or bars, by the way!


timzsta - I will be objecting to the ludicrous notion of 'LAFI's becoming FIC instructors as soon as the NPA is released. In fact, I think that the whole LAFI concept is an utter crock now that the PPL/FI is going to be so readily available.

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

I know I'm going on a bit but surely this is a contadiction:

"I will be objecting to the ludicrous notion of 'LAFI's becoming FIC instructors as soon as the NPA is released."

Why will you be objecting when you also say:

" we won't give a rat's about the licence held by the instructor as we'll only offer jobs to people who can prove that they have sound personal flying skills, acceptable interpersonal skills, the ability to impart instruction and the capacity to assess the student's flying."

What if the LAFI had 3000 hours instruction under their belt and all the qualities you mention above? Unless you think that a LAFI will have less of a knowledge base...... I can't see the differerence between this and the CPL/PPL FI argument?

At least if there were a division between the privileges of a LAFI and CPL qualified JAA FI's there would be room for everyone.

Anyway, at least we can agree on the Wings and Gold bars thing.

[timzsta]

Because the only people who should be teaching the teachers are professionally qualified pilots. Those who have demonstrated by passing a multitude of exams and skills tests that they have the necessary technical knowledge and flying ability to teach people to instruct.

The scenario we have above is that somebody could do a LAFI rating, then work at a club doing a couple of trial lessons each Sunday and after 3 years and a couple of hundred hours of Instructional time be teaching on the LAFI course which is a complete load of horlicks.

I mentioned the above to an FIE yesterday and his reply was "expect mushroom shaped cloud in the megaton range to form over b*ll**** castle".

I have just been looking at LASORS but I cant find where the current requirements to become a Fl Course Instructor are. Did however find FIE. Anyone point me in the right direction?

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

I take it, using the logic in your last comment that if a PPL FI had 500 hours instruction and were made of the right stuff etc as per Bertie Bassett's post you would support them becoming a paid FIC instructor?.... or would this be encroaching on your territory as the push behind this thread is encroaching on mine?

[BEagle]

No reason why not.

But that's a PPL/FI, emphatically not a 'LAFI'.

[Pringle 1]

Beagle,

Sorry to direct everything at you, but you seem to be the one with his finger on the pulse.

So where are we putting the limit on what a PPL FI can teach under the proposed new regs? I thought it was basic PPL instruction?

Am I right that if these plans go ahead a PPL FIC instructor could train a CPL qualifed student for his or her FI(R)? The student could then eventually end up teaching to CPL level having been taught by a PPL ?

Will the new PPL instructor be able to teach IMC (if it still exists), aeros, IR, examine etc if his student is a PPL....for money? (I am not including those with grandfather rights here). If so this is surely not in the spirit of things!

[BEagle]

You'll have to wait (as will I) until the EASA NPAs are announced in a few months' time.

However, I suspect that any FI will only be permitted to instruct to the level of the licences and ratings which they hold themselves. Whether for remuneration or not.

[homeguard]

Money, money, money!

Pringle1

What is the objection to a PPL/FI teaching a CPL holder? The CPL holder will be trained on their FIC to teach student pilots, something they haven't yet done. Their FIC instructor (ATPL, CPL or PPL) will have a knowledge and qualification that they do not. That is to instruct/teach a pilot for a licence or rating. Neither of which is covered in CPL knowledge or flight test.

On any FIC a presumption is made that the basic skill and knowledge is held. The course is to use those skills to teach others. Should you have an ATPL, CPL or PPL the FIC therefore remains the same.

Is there an argument that could support a view, held by too many, that those such as BEAgle and many, many others - who may not wish to a have a commercial licence, should not teach on an FIC course. The commercial carriage of passengers is not what is being taught.

The FIC minimum knowledge, just the same, should be set to ensure a professional knowledge level of the basics of flight, navigation and the atmosphere. The CPL studies, however, are much wider than that and it follows that much of it is superflous to need.

[BEagle]

Actually, although I've held an ATPL for quite a while now, I don't have any intention on moving from UK/FE PPL to FIC instructor, to instruct CPL students or anything of that sort. Just PPL-level is fine for me!

[Pringle 1]

Homeguard,

Unfortunatlely for some, like me, money is an issue. Terms and conditions are bad enough at the moment even with a shortage of instructors. An influx of PPL FI's will certainly not improve conditions. I was able to justify the cost of CPL/FIC/Class 1 medical etc to my family on the basis that I would be able to slowly recover the costs over the years. What frustrates me the most is the existing instructors who are selling out their colleagues at the lower end of the food chain.

As I have stated in previous posts I believe the only reason the rules are changing is because it suits the industry to save costs. As ever, no thought is given to those who have supported the industry over the years.

If I were an FIC instructor the new plans might be a good thing as I would be waiting for the influx of new PPL FI candidates. If I were an examiner I would also be unaffected by new low hour PPL FI's.......But, what happens when new PPL FI's become experienced PPL FI's and the industry is running out of commercial instructors? (Lets face it, in this new structure, would you really pay for a CPL if you didn't have intentions of moving on from instructing?)........ Perhaps the industry and Senior CFI's could put together a paper saying how ridiculous it is that PPL's, as the most experienced instructors on the planet, can't teach to CPL level? Heh presto entry requirements and pay fall again.

Those of you who hope to instruct long term and are staying quiet, remember.... "you reap what you sow!!!"

[2close]

It also amazes me that people (myself included!) are readily willing to accept the legal liability that goes with flight instruction for such paltry rewards. It is not only the employer that is liable but the FI as well.

Will PPL FI's, who would in the main be part-time 'self-employed' operators be willing to accept the liability of the mass of health & safety legislation that will apply to them abd with effect from March 2008 the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 for the pennies they will be paid?

[shortstripper]

Pringle ....

For goodness sake, get a life! If you feel sooooo threatened by the idea that PPL's might once again instruct, then you really are insecure. I'm just a lowly PPL, but I've been flying for the last 25 years and have seen many changes. Hopefully a few of the many to come will be for the better! I was taught by a PPL and to be honest the only crap instructor I ever had was for my IMC. He was an obvious "time filler" CPL, and preferred to "demonstrate" rather than give proper instruction. In the end, feeling very embarrassed I went to the CFI, who changed him for a real instructor ... funnily enough a PPL

I have always said there will be room for the career instructors, teaching ME, IR, CPL ect. Ok, I can see your frustration if PPL's can teach these higher levels, but realistically, what's the chance of that? To teach ME and IR, you would have to at least have the ratings. Most ME/IR rated pilots ARE CPL's, and the few that are not, are at least just as well qualified in those disciplines. I don't think you have to worry about too many ME/IR rated PPL's flooding the market! Most with those qualifications in the PPL catagory are very busy business men who use the ratings to get around Europe and have no time to play at being instructors.

I can also see your point about CPL qualified instructors. If you can become a CPL with 200 hours, why would you do an FIR? Why indeed? In the past, you needed 700 hours to get a CPL, so instructing was a good hours builder. But in that case, why do CPL's now, who want to be airline pilots, bother with FIR? Beat's me? .... but they do! I don't think the rule change will make much difference. It didn't before. All it did was exclude a generation of experience to the newly qualified pilots of the 90's who seem to have missed out on the idea that flying can be a lot more fun than £150 cups of coffee at surrounding airfields. Thank goodness the microlight fraternity popped up! If not all the fun in aviation would have been snuffed out

SS

[Solar]

I see "The Westmoreland Flye" in post 10 mentions the hassles and costs involved for the exams, I found on the CAA site that the exams could be taken a several locations in the mainland UK but when I queried the distance learning school about sitting the exams in Glasgow I was told that it only applies to the ATPL's and not the CPL's (and before anybody asks I only want/need the CPL for instruction), bit strange as I understand the the exams are basically the same only less subjects on the CPL. I'm sure there is some CAA logical explanation for it!!!!!

[TheOddOne]

I'm sure there is some CAA logical explanation for it!!!!!

The word for today is 'oxymoron', WRT 'CAA' and 'logical'

TOO

[Whopity]

I have always said there will be room for the career instructors, teaching ME, IR, CPL ect. Ok

There will always be a requirement but, where will they come from? If we can service the recreational industry with PPL instructors, what incentive will there be to pay the additional costs to do the same thing at commercial level, especially if the MPL takes off, and all commercial single engine instruction will become a glorified PPL. There is already an issue finding MPL instructors with 1500 hous MP operation, who will be prepared to work at any time day and night in Simulators!