PPL-FI Requirements changing with EASA?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: midlands
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more with Pringle 1. Why should all the hard work, CPL exams, hours building, class 1 medical, CPL course etc etc be undervalued by an "easier" route to an FI rating. For a career instructor, by maintaining the route as it currently stands, although be it difficult and expensive, means there are fewer of us but gives the job more status and more chance of earning a decent wage.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411331,
Nice to hear I'm not the only one! I think many others hope they will be 'out the other side,' flying airliners by the time this kicks in and consequently, assume these changes won't affect them.
Nice to hear I'm not the only one! I think many others hope they will be 'out the other side,' flying airliners by the time this kicks in and consequently, assume these changes won't affect them.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I do sympathise, I do still think it's the right way forward.
What saddens me is that the system was changed to force instructors to have CPL's in the first place. The old PPL FI system worked ok, so why did they change it. If nothing had been changed, nobody would be moaning or inconvenienced now. If the change back then was so necessary, then it should remain now. I do not believe it was the right decision then, so I believe bringing back PPL instructors is the correct approach now.
I'm sorry that many instructors feel aggrieved, but it is interesting to note that many CPL's who instruct, but started as PPL instructors, support the move. I know FI pay is crap, it has always been so and probably will always remain so. But then, look at farm workers, horsey girls, lab technicians, ect ect. Many professions in life are notoriously underpaid (and not just unskilled ones). It's just supply and demand. The demand for flying training is there, but at a finite cost. If it gets too expensive, people will simply stop training. At the same time, there are plenty who fly who'd like to teach, but again, if it is too expensive to get the qualifications, they will not. Those on a career path to the airlines need hours. They can hour build in the States, or get a job instructing or whatever. The poor wage is offset by the "cheap" hours they build, so they suit themselves and therefore have no cross to bear in my book. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but so is life .. accept it, or do more than simply moan to change it.
Those on a mission to become career instructors should still have a path. After all, PPL instructors will not (or rather should not) be able to teach higher than their qualification. There won't be that many multi engine IR rated PPL instructors about, so the career instructor, who goes from PPL to CPL/ME/IR should have a place. As it now stands, as an instructor needs a CPL to instruct, there are many more instructors with these higher qualifications about, therefore there is more competition for the career instructor from his/her peers. Take out the pure airline seeking CPL's from the instructor pool, and the chance of finding work for advanced training increases as there are fewer FI's with the required ratings.
I might be wrong ... but then? Funny thing is, I was flying when we had PPL instructors. Nothing much really seems to have changed in the great scale of things, but a lot of the fun seems to have left GA and transferred to the microlight fraternity who are now booming ... Why's that then?
SS
What saddens me is that the system was changed to force instructors to have CPL's in the first place. The old PPL FI system worked ok, so why did they change it. If nothing had been changed, nobody would be moaning or inconvenienced now. If the change back then was so necessary, then it should remain now. I do not believe it was the right decision then, so I believe bringing back PPL instructors is the correct approach now.
I'm sorry that many instructors feel aggrieved, but it is interesting to note that many CPL's who instruct, but started as PPL instructors, support the move. I know FI pay is crap, it has always been so and probably will always remain so. But then, look at farm workers, horsey girls, lab technicians, ect ect. Many professions in life are notoriously underpaid (and not just unskilled ones). It's just supply and demand. The demand for flying training is there, but at a finite cost. If it gets too expensive, people will simply stop training. At the same time, there are plenty who fly who'd like to teach, but again, if it is too expensive to get the qualifications, they will not. Those on a career path to the airlines need hours. They can hour build in the States, or get a job instructing or whatever. The poor wage is offset by the "cheap" hours they build, so they suit themselves and therefore have no cross to bear in my book. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but so is life .. accept it, or do more than simply moan to change it.
Those on a mission to become career instructors should still have a path. After all, PPL instructors will not (or rather should not) be able to teach higher than their qualification. There won't be that many multi engine IR rated PPL instructors about, so the career instructor, who goes from PPL to CPL/ME/IR should have a place. As it now stands, as an instructor needs a CPL to instruct, there are many more instructors with these higher qualifications about, therefore there is more competition for the career instructor from his/her peers. Take out the pure airline seeking CPL's from the instructor pool, and the chance of finding work for advanced training increases as there are fewer FI's with the required ratings.
I might be wrong ... but then? Funny thing is, I was flying when we had PPL instructors. Nothing much really seems to have changed in the great scale of things, but a lot of the fun seems to have left GA and transferred to the microlight fraternity who are now booming ... Why's that then?
SS
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 can really see a problem shortage of suitably qualified instructors at CPL level in this country shortly... if not already. My hunch is much more advanced training will be moved overseas with a small core of IR instructors left creaming the milk off the many in the UK.
Rarely does a newly minted CPL/IR fATPL holder decide to forget airline flying and stick with instructing long enough to aquire the associated ratings to instruct advanced students.
What background have most advanced instructors come from? The answer is probably via the old CAA CPL route. How many people still go through this route as a viable means of obtaining pilot work? Not many I bet.
VFE.
Rarely does a newly minted CPL/IR fATPL holder decide to forget airline flying and stick with instructing long enough to aquire the associated ratings to instruct advanced students.
What background have most advanced instructors come from? The answer is probably via the old CAA CPL route. How many people still go through this route as a viable means of obtaining pilot work? Not many I bet.
VFE.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere in the FIR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here Here, i agree with you whole heartedly!
I have spent vast sums of hard earned to gain my FI,but had to do the ATPL's and the commercial course to get it.
To now, open up the back door and let any T,D or H, do it, just doesnt seem fair to me
I have spent vast sums of hard earned to gain my FI,but had to do the ATPL's and the commercial course to get it.
To now, open up the back door and let any T,D or H, do it, just doesnt seem fair to 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
At least you'll have the option of moving on to CPL instruction and possibly IR should you wish later on in your career.
VFE.
VFE.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least you'll have the option of moving on to CPL instruction and possibly IR should you wish later on in your career.
To now, open up the back door and let any T,D or H, do it, just doesnt seem fair to me
If you really wanted to be selective, you'd select potential FIR's by flying experience, teaching experience and aptitude. Certainly, just the fact that they have a CPL (which to be blunt is little reflection of skill or experience) means nothing about their ability to teach flying skills at PPL level. To be fair, the CPL is a reasonable measure of "standard", but that could easily be measured without the need to become a CPL.
SS
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Near Penrith
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Predictably this discussion has settled into two camps...
- The "over my dead body" people who had to do CPL exams in order to then do the FI and therefore think everyone else should have to go through the same pain.
- The "I'd love to do the FI but the CPL requirement is a disincentive" people.
There is, of course a group of people we don't really hear from and that is those that got their PPL FI rating before the requirement for CPL exams was imposed and were given a BCPL to keep things above board. It would be interesting to hear from these people whether the advent of CPL qualified FIs improved PPL instruction standards or whether it was really just an exercise in massively increasing the cost of getting the FI rating.
- The "over my dead body" people who had to do CPL exams in order to then do the FI and therefore think everyone else should have to go through the same pain.
- The "I'd love to do the FI but the CPL requirement is a disincentive" people.
There is, of course a group of people we don't really hear from and that is those that got their PPL FI rating before the requirement for CPL exams was imposed and were given a BCPL to keep things above board. It would be interesting to hear from these people whether the advent of CPL qualified FIs improved PPL instruction standards or whether it was really just an exercise in massively increasing the cost of getting the FI rating.
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
The Westmorland Flye
...well I'm not in any of your categories!
I'm a FI in possession of a BCPL which I gained by taking the CPL exams and the CPL test when the BCPL first came out nearly 20 years ago, but didn't do the FI course until last year. All in all, I reckon I must have spent the equivalent in today's money of the thick end of £50k before I received my very first pay cheque earned flying. Mind you, that has been spent over 25 years, much of it on recreational flying and it's ALL been fun, so what the heck?
I'd be very happy to work alongside people with a PPL and a FI rating who were paid the same as me, provided they were good at what they do. I do believe that experience and ability to teach are FAR more important than a paper qualification. Don't demean the CPL, though, it isn't easy to do (wasn't for me, anyhow, doing it in my spare time). I found the FIC much tougher, but actually instructing is another ball game altogether, I'm REALLY starting to learn how to fly, now!
Cheers,
TheOddOne
...well I'm not in any of your categories!
I'm a FI in possession of a BCPL which I gained by taking the CPL exams and the CPL test when the BCPL first came out nearly 20 years ago, but didn't do the FI course until last year. All in all, I reckon I must have spent the equivalent in today's money of the thick end of £50k before I received my very first pay cheque earned flying. Mind you, that has been spent over 25 years, much of it on recreational flying and it's ALL been fun, so what the heck?
I'd be very happy to work alongside people with a PPL and a FI rating who were paid the same as me, provided they were good at what they do. I do believe that experience and ability to teach are FAR more important than a paper qualification. Don't demean the CPL, though, it isn't easy to do (wasn't for me, anyhow, doing it in my spare time). I found the FIC much tougher, but actually instructing is another ball game altogether, I'm REALLY starting to learn how to fly, now!
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Near Penrith
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't demean the CPL
By all means have an exam as part of the FI training which tests theoretical knowledge that's applicable to the role of the FI. That would make altogether too much sense though
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industry 'Big Wiggs' seem to have decided to support the cheapest option of employing PPL's to instruct. I do not agree with them, but have no power to stop it. If we are forced down this road, I believe the standards issue is the most important one to get right. For all the criticisms people have of the CPL system, it is a national standard, examined centrally by the CAA. This applies to the flying as well as the ground school.
Many believe there is a need for a new written exam or exams which exclude some of the less relevant CPL subjects. This would seem sensible. It would also seem sensible to have the exam set and marked at a central location (CAA). My experience of locally set examinations is far from satisfactory. There should be no chance of cheating or allowing 10 attempts at the exam to fill a club's instructor vacancies.
The experience levels required from PPL candidates should be higher than for CPL to allow for the lack of structure when hours building. Westmoorland/Shortstripper can you at least agree this point. You keep going on about how many PPLs' have more experience than some CPL's. Not if the PPL has 200 hours they don't!!! At the moment it seems that the hours requirement will be the same whether CPL or PPL. This must mean a reduction in minimum standards.
To fit with the spirit of these changes surely a PPL/FI should only be able to teach to basic PPL level. This should not include the IR, IMC or aerobatics, even if the student they are teaching is a PPL. I am concerned that the goal posts are already moving away from instructing as a profession towards it being a hobby for the rich and/or retired airline/military pilots.
VFE - I agree with your thoughts on advanced training moving overseas . I may be wrong, but I don't think the new proposals will prevent a PPL teaching the IR. The principal seems to be the instructor can teach up to his or her own qualifications. A PPL/IR with FI rating would seem to fit into that bracket. Should be a nice little number for a retired airline pilot who has lost his Class 1 medical. So much for instructor career progression. Any thoughts Beagle?
Now the thorny issue of money. Some seem to consider any discussion on this subject as vulgar. Peronally, I am forced to instruct part-time because the pay is so poor. I would love to go full time but wouldn't be able to pay the bills. I teach to basic PPL level. An influx of PPL/IR's will have a negative effect on my pay and conditions. Supply and demand! At the moment I still have the hope that one day I will move onto more advanced instructing, as the wage would allow me to go full time. If these new plans spead to include other ratings and or licences this avenue will be closed to me any many others who hold similar ambitions. So much for career progression, again!
In my view we should be very cautious of letting the number of CPL instructors fall, which they inevitably will, if pay and conditions deteriorate. I would estimate that around 50% of the students I have taught have harboured some ambition to go commercial. If the UK clubs cannot provide the product these people want, they wont even walk through the clubhouse door. If the lack of suitably qualified pilots looks likely to affect the economy, govenment run authorities (CAA, EASA etc) will be forced to allow the likes of Ryanair to source a more cost effective option. This could exclude SEP flying altogether which isn't good for any of us.... PPL or CPL.
So those making these decisions.... please get the balance right as the stakes are high.
Many believe there is a need for a new written exam or exams which exclude some of the less relevant CPL subjects. This would seem sensible. It would also seem sensible to have the exam set and marked at a central location (CAA). My experience of locally set examinations is far from satisfactory. There should be no chance of cheating or allowing 10 attempts at the exam to fill a club's instructor vacancies.
The experience levels required from PPL candidates should be higher than for CPL to allow for the lack of structure when hours building. Westmoorland/Shortstripper can you at least agree this point. You keep going on about how many PPLs' have more experience than some CPL's. Not if the PPL has 200 hours they don't!!! At the moment it seems that the hours requirement will be the same whether CPL or PPL. This must mean a reduction in minimum standards.
To fit with the spirit of these changes surely a PPL/FI should only be able to teach to basic PPL level. This should not include the IR, IMC or aerobatics, even if the student they are teaching is a PPL. I am concerned that the goal posts are already moving away from instructing as a profession towards it being a hobby for the rich and/or retired airline/military pilots.
VFE - I agree with your thoughts on advanced training moving overseas . I may be wrong, but I don't think the new proposals will prevent a PPL teaching the IR. The principal seems to be the instructor can teach up to his or her own qualifications. A PPL/IR with FI rating would seem to fit into that bracket. Should be a nice little number for a retired airline pilot who has lost his Class 1 medical. So much for instructor career progression. Any thoughts Beagle?
Now the thorny issue of money. Some seem to consider any discussion on this subject as vulgar. Peronally, I am forced to instruct part-time because the pay is so poor. I would love to go full time but wouldn't be able to pay the bills. I teach to basic PPL level. An influx of PPL/IR's will have a negative effect on my pay and conditions. Supply and demand! At the moment I still have the hope that one day I will move onto more advanced instructing, as the wage would allow me to go full time. If these new plans spead to include other ratings and or licences this avenue will be closed to me any many others who hold similar ambitions. So much for career progression, again!
In my view we should be very cautious of letting the number of CPL instructors fall, which they inevitably will, if pay and conditions deteriorate. I would estimate that around 50% of the students I have taught have harboured some ambition to go commercial. If the UK clubs cannot provide the product these people want, they wont even walk through the clubhouse door. If the lack of suitably qualified pilots looks likely to affect the economy, govenment run authorities (CAA, EASA etc) will be forced to allow the likes of Ryanair to source a more cost effective option. This could exclude SEP flying altogether which isn't good for any of us.... PPL or CPL.
So those making these decisions.... please get the balance right as the stakes are high.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpl/ppl
Pringle1
The point that you are missing is that only since JAA has it been a requirement to hold a CPL to be paid as an FI. The wages paid, other than allowing for inflation, has not changed over the last 9 years just the same. PPL/FI were paid before JAA and reality will be that they will continue to be paid. Even when you take out the CPL requirement a PPL will still be required to make a large investment to be an instructor and also to maintain the rating. They will insist on payment in most cases. If they do not wish to be paid they will waive payment as of now.
One further point. It is not the role of the 'Safety Regulation Group' to protect the wages of instructors at PPL or any other level.
The point that you are missing is that only since JAA has it been a requirement to hold a CPL to be paid as an FI. The wages paid, other than allowing for inflation, has not changed over the last 9 years just the same. PPL/FI were paid before JAA and reality will be that they will continue to be paid. Even when you take out the CPL requirement a PPL will still be required to make a large investment to be an instructor and also to maintain the rating. They will insist on payment in most cases. If they do not wish to be paid they will waive payment as of now.
One further point. It is not the role of the 'Safety Regulation Group' to protect the wages of instructors at PPL or any other level.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Near Penrith
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very interesting points, Pringle. Here are my thoughts...
1. If my experience us anything to go by, there is a desperate and worsening shortage of flight instructors at present. My school's training programme is entirely limited by the number of instructor hours it can procure. So I think that the supply/demand situation for FIs will remain favourable to the FI community.
2. I have no problem with a relevant theory exam, though in my opinion that should form part of the FI training, not be, as at present, an entry qualification. Central examinations would be no problem provided central doesn't mean only twice a year at Gatwick! For those of us who live up north, that's an immediate increase in cost of several hundred quid and a quite unnecessary inconvenience. To be honest, given that relatively few schools do the FI training courses, I can't really see why they should be deemed incapable of administering the theory exam given that they are approved to do the flight training.
3. Hours. I would suggest a minimum of 300 hours (200 PIC) for all candidates. I guess the entrance test flight could be retained to weed out those that have managed to fail to meet the input standard by that time.
4. Yes, the basic PPL FI should only instruct ab initio. If he has an IMC rating then he could do a further FI (IMC) course to qualify him to instruct that (actually, I am amazed that this isn't already a requirement!). Ditto Night.
5. Money. Always a trick question! To avoid the school attempting to discount, or pocket the difference, all ab initio payment should be at the same rate. Obviously advanced training (IMC, Night, IR, whatever) could command a premium and for the most part your average PPL FI isn't going to go there. If he does, then he deserves the money.
6. I don't understand your point about ex. airline pilots coming in and spoiling your fun. Surely they can do that right now - they already have all the paper qualifications and merely need to do the FI course.
1. If my experience us anything to go by, there is a desperate and worsening shortage of flight instructors at present. My school's training programme is entirely limited by the number of instructor hours it can procure. So I think that the supply/demand situation for FIs will remain favourable to the FI community.
2. I have no problem with a relevant theory exam, though in my opinion that should form part of the FI training, not be, as at present, an entry qualification. Central examinations would be no problem provided central doesn't mean only twice a year at Gatwick! For those of us who live up north, that's an immediate increase in cost of several hundred quid and a quite unnecessary inconvenience. To be honest, given that relatively few schools do the FI training courses, I can't really see why they should be deemed incapable of administering the theory exam given that they are approved to do the flight training.
3. Hours. I would suggest a minimum of 300 hours (200 PIC) for all candidates. I guess the entrance test flight could be retained to weed out those that have managed to fail to meet the input standard by that time.
4. Yes, the basic PPL FI should only instruct ab initio. If he has an IMC rating then he could do a further FI (IMC) course to qualify him to instruct that (actually, I am amazed that this isn't already a requirement!). Ditto Night.
5. Money. Always a trick question! To avoid the school attempting to discount, or pocket the difference, all ab initio payment should be at the same rate. Obviously advanced training (IMC, Night, IR, whatever) could command a premium and for the most part your average PPL FI isn't going to go there. If he does, then he deserves the money.
6. I don't understand your point about ex. airline pilots coming in and spoiling your fun. Surely they can do that right now - they already have all the paper qualifications and merely need to do the FI course.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westmoorland/Homeguard
Thanks for the replies. Its a shame these discussions are only for our own amusement, but it helps to get things off one's chest.
I agree the 'Safety Regulation Group' is not responsible for securing instructor pay and working conditions, they should be respnsible for safety issues ...and maintaining Standards. I trust this is what they will do.....rather than lowering them in order to prop up the industry. Let's wait and see?!! Don't let's pretend that safety is anything to do with this. The industry is in crisis and clutching at straws trying to justify its actions by looking to the past rather than thinking what will be best for the future.
I accept that the old system worked in its day.....In those days 700 hours SEP were valued by potential airline employers. Now,generally, they are not. Airlines now prefer an integrated student who will pay for a type rating. This is why there is a shortage of instructors. Lets not kid ourselves that most of the PPL instructors of old, didn't want to be airline pilots...they just built a few hours instructing on a PPL before playing their hand. Of course, some did hold a genuine desire to instruct for the long term, as I do.... with my CPL. The reason I have a CPL is that I was told by the aviation establishment that it was essential to have a CPL to be good enough to work as an instructor. Forgive me if I don't trust the law makers now they want to change things back because it suits them!
If the flying clubs pay peanuts they will get monkeys ......or alternatively someone who doesn't need to be paid a decent wage. e.g. ex airline/military pilot or wealthy PPL. People in my situation will be forced out of the market because we are unable to compete. I predict there will no longer be a shortage of instructors when the number of PPL students reduces. I believe this will happen if there is no benefit to getting a SEP PPL as the first step to a commercial licence. This problem will be exaserpated if the number of PPL FI's increases (not forgetting the microlight and MPL alternatives which are already out there or on the way).
Who do you think we will all be training in this new Utopia? PPL's who want to be PPL/FI's? I guess we could all check each other out to keep current.
I wonder how I would be received by pilots on the airline forums if I started spouting off that I should be let loose on a 747 because I thought it was too much bother to do the course they had been through.
I think we instructors must have self esteem issues!
Thanks for the replies. Its a shame these discussions are only for our own amusement, but it helps to get things off one's chest.
I agree the 'Safety Regulation Group' is not responsible for securing instructor pay and working conditions, they should be respnsible for safety issues ...and maintaining Standards. I trust this is what they will do.....rather than lowering them in order to prop up the industry. Let's wait and see?!! Don't let's pretend that safety is anything to do with this. The industry is in crisis and clutching at straws trying to justify its actions by looking to the past rather than thinking what will be best for the future.
I accept that the old system worked in its day.....In those days 700 hours SEP were valued by potential airline employers. Now,generally, they are not. Airlines now prefer an integrated student who will pay for a type rating. This is why there is a shortage of instructors. Lets not kid ourselves that most of the PPL instructors of old, didn't want to be airline pilots...they just built a few hours instructing on a PPL before playing their hand. Of course, some did hold a genuine desire to instruct for the long term, as I do.... with my CPL. The reason I have a CPL is that I was told by the aviation establishment that it was essential to have a CPL to be good enough to work as an instructor. Forgive me if I don't trust the law makers now they want to change things back because it suits them!
If the flying clubs pay peanuts they will get monkeys ......or alternatively someone who doesn't need to be paid a decent wage. e.g. ex airline/military pilot or wealthy PPL. People in my situation will be forced out of the market because we are unable to compete. I predict there will no longer be a shortage of instructors when the number of PPL students reduces. I believe this will happen if there is no benefit to getting a SEP PPL as the first step to a commercial licence. This problem will be exaserpated if the number of PPL FI's increases (not forgetting the microlight and MPL alternatives which are already out there or on the way).
Who do you think we will all be training in this new Utopia? PPL's who want to be PPL/FI's? I guess we could all check each other out to keep current.
I wonder how I would be received by pilots on the airline forums if I started spouting off that I should be let loose on a 747 because I thought it was too much bother to do the course they had been through.
I think we instructors must have self esteem issues!
I agree the 'Safety Regulation Group' is not responsible for securing instructor pay and working conditions, they should be respnsible for safety issues ...and maintaining Standards.
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
The reason I have a CPL is that I was told by the aviation establishment that it was essential to have a CPL to be good enough to work as an instructor.
I don't believe that this was the case. My take on it was that 'if you're being PAID for flying, then you must have a COMMERCIAL qualification'. I don't recall anyone saying it had anything to do with proving you could teach anyone how to fly - that's what the FIC has always been about.
If I may draw a comparison:
I think it's perfectly legal for you to go out and buy a bus and give your friends free rides in it. However, to charge anyone for a ride, you must have a PSV licence.
The CPL course is partly about learning more about the weather and aircraft performance, so that you can make more considered decisions about whether or not to fly when faced with commercial pressures to make money (either for yourself or someone else). Along the way it also attempts to hone your personal hands-on flying skills. The FI course does FAR more in this regard, of course.
Would you be content with a FIC that was expended to include more on this commercial decision-making if the candidate didn't have a CPL?
Cheers,
TheOddOne
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheOddOne,
Yes, sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about paid instruction. i.e It was implied that I wasn't good enough to instruct for money if I was a PPL. Now apparently I would be.
Sobering thoughts Billiebob. At least we know they won't mess it up like JAA??!!
Westmoorland,
I didn't rally answer you last time.. my main concern over ex airline Pilots was that if they could instruct on a PPL rather than a CPL, many who had been shown the back door to commercial aviation for medical reasons would be able to take jobs from those on the commercial instructor route. At the moment they are confined to simulator work.
Yes, sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about paid instruction. i.e It was implied that I wasn't good enough to instruct for money if I was a PPL. Now apparently I would be.
Sobering thoughts Billiebob. At least we know they won't mess it up like JAA??!!
Westmoorland,
I didn't rally answer you last time.. my main concern over ex airline Pilots was that if they could instruct on a PPL rather than a CPL, many who had been shown the back door to commercial aviation for medical reasons would be able to take jobs from those on the commercial instructor route. At the moment they are confined to simulator work.
Pringle,
I don't think there would be many ex airline pilots currently working as sim instructors who will try to take the jobs you refer to. Currently a sim instructor teaching on a level D sim in the UK can earn between £500 - 1000 per day (if they are prepared to do two sims in one day ie about 15 hrs work). Given the choice of doing that or bashing around in a seneca I know which I would choose.
However, there is also perhaps another point which should be considered. If an ex airline pilot with say 15,000hrs of commercial IFR experience is allowed to teach IRs on a PPL, might that experience be useful to the flying school and the students, possible more so than a CPL/IR with the minimum IF requirement to be an IR instructor. Whilst there must be a career path for instructors should the needs of the students also be taken into account.
I am not, by the way, suggesting that all airline pilots would be good at teaching IRs just because they are airline pilots, or that CPL/IR instructors wouldn't be. However I know that when I instruct instrument flying nowdays for IMC ratings I do a much better job of it having spent the last 15 years flying multi-crew IFR than I used to when I had a CPL/IR and very little actual IFR experience.
I don't think there would be many ex airline pilots currently working as sim instructors who will try to take the jobs you refer to. Currently a sim instructor teaching on a level D sim in the UK can earn between £500 - 1000 per day (if they are prepared to do two sims in one day ie about 15 hrs work). Given the choice of doing that or bashing around in a seneca I know which I would choose.
However, there is also perhaps another point which should be considered. If an ex airline pilot with say 15,000hrs of commercial IFR experience is allowed to teach IRs on a PPL, might that experience be useful to the flying school and the students, possible more so than a CPL/IR with the minimum IF requirement to be an IR instructor. Whilst there must be a career path for instructors should the needs of the students also be taken into account.
I am not, by the way, suggesting that all airline pilots would be good at teaching IRs just because they are airline pilots, or that CPL/IR instructors wouldn't be. However I know that when I instruct instrument flying nowdays for IMC ratings I do a much better job of it having spent the last 15 years flying multi-crew IFR than I used to when I had a CPL/IR and very little actual IFR experience.