PPL. Becoming a Flying Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best things in life are free.
Heidthebaw
You carry on.
Nothing wrong with being an Instructor for free flying and having fun. We need more instructors back into the flying clubs who are doing it for fun. For most who learn to fly that is why they too are there, for fun.
You carry on.
Nothing wrong with being an Instructor for free flying and having fun. We need more instructors back into the flying clubs who are doing it for fun. For most who learn to fly that is why they too are there, for fun.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 52
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I used the term "free flying " wrongly in my post. What i meant to say was that i would far rather teach and get paid for flying than fork out tremendous amounts every time i wish to hire an aircraft to do what i enjoy doing . I'm under no illusions how difficult instructing will be , but i can tell you i will put 110% into instructing and certainly won't be there simply for the jolly.
I've flown with a number of instructors who moaned continually about their job, some even trying to discourage wannabe's , they should try doing a real crap job like shifting ten tonne of gravel in a wheel barrow every day for weeks on end , or lifting litter and cleaning bin stores in the worst areas of Glasgow. What i'm trying to say is , flight instruction aint that bad a way of making a living .
I've flown with a number of instructors who moaned continually about their job, some even trying to discourage wannabe's , they should try doing a real crap job like shifting ten tonne of gravel in a wheel barrow every day for weeks on end , or lifting litter and cleaning bin stores in the worst areas of Glasgow. What i'm trying to say is , flight instruction aint that bad a way of making a living .
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heidthebaw,
I was quick to have a rant, but having read your last post I wish you the best. You do have a point....
.
However...............................like all flying, if you want to make a small fortune..........start off with a big fortune!
Cheers and good luck
UTF
I was quick to have a rant, but having read your last post I wish you the best. You do have a point....
flight instruction aint that bad a way of making a living
However...............................like all flying, if you want to make a small fortune..........start off with a big fortune!
Cheers and good luck
UTF
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shifting ten tonne of gravel in a wheel barrow every day for weeks on end , or lifting litter and cleaning bin stores in the worst areas of Glasgow. What i'm trying to say is , flight instruction aint that bad a way of making a living
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
FOK has raised an important issue and one worthy of it's own thread.
My opinion is that the UK needs a rating of this nature for regular PPL flyers. I doubt it encourages flight into IMC as some might believe but even if it does - why the cause for concern if the pilot is capable of safely letting down afterwards?
I guess accident/incident statistics will show how the IMC has contributed to safety in the notoriously inclement wx conditions here in the UK when (and if) it disappears.
VFE.
My opinion is that the UK needs a rating of this nature for regular PPL flyers. I doubt it encourages flight into IMC as some might believe but even if it does - why the cause for concern if the pilot is capable of safely letting down afterwards?
I guess accident/incident statistics will show how the IMC has contributed to safety in the notoriously inclement wx conditions here in the UK when (and if) it disappears.
VFE.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul Craig...The Killing Zone....
Best book I read.
It is a no-brainer - the IMC or IR training does reduce accident rates. The FAA and CAA have studied the issue at length. We know it makes sense - we just need EASA to see some.....ah, I was going to say sense!
It is a no-brainer - the IMC or IR training does reduce accident rates. The FAA and CAA have studied the issue at length. We know it makes sense - we just need EASA to see some.....ah, I was going to say sense!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOK,
To maintain the IMC rating one must do a renewal every two years. If the required standard is not met. more training is required.
If as you say most would not have the ability to handle the workload this brings into question the test or renewal standards.
I was thourghly put through the wringer on my last renewal which included a full 1.20 under the hood with no break. No shortcuts there and no complaints either.
To maintain the IMC rating one must do a renewal every two years. If the required standard is not met. more training is required.
If as you say most would not have the ability to handle the workload this brings into question the test or renewal standards.
I was thourghly put through the wringer on my last renewal which included a full 1.20 under the hood with no break. No shortcuts there and no complaints either.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: oxon
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello
Please don't rely on EASA abolishing the need for the ATPL/CPL theory to have been completed for entry to an FI course in the UK.
Sources at the CAA have stated quite clearly that they will oppose this move and, if it goes through, that they will opt out of this section.
Also - the IMC will not be abolished - it will be replaced with a Europe-wide "mini-IR" - so it will be better than the current rating. All holders with a current IMC will more than likely just have a slightly different renewal when the time comes and their rating transferred.
Please don't rely on EASA abolishing the need for the ATPL/CPL theory to have been completed for entry to an FI course in the UK.
Sources at the CAA have stated quite clearly that they will oppose this move and, if it goes through, that they will opt out of this section.
Also - the IMC will not be abolished - it will be replaced with a Europe-wide "mini-IR" - so it will be better than the current rating. All holders with a current IMC will more than likely just have a slightly different renewal when the time comes and their rating transferred.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I remind everyone that the main reason for the requirement of a CPL before an FI course can be undertaken was to eliminate the FI as a route to cheap hours to get the CPL in the first place. This has always depressed the wages paid to fixed wing FI's unless they worked for some form of approved school. These days, frozen ATPL holders with the minimum hours still decide that they will stand more chance of getting that right hand seat job with more hours, so they fork out for a FI rating to get a cheap 1000 hours in their books as soon as possible thus the wages are still ridiculously low and the situation does not look like changing.
In my day, I got a FI rating on my PPL because I wanted to instruct and do my bit for the club who taught me in the first place for next to nothing. I did this for 25 years and only started to think about getting my own CPL nine years after I started when I had well over 1000 hours in my book. During that time I had had to sort out the messes left behind by the hour building instructors who appeard, flew like mad and disappeared as soon as the magic 700 hours was recorded in their logbooks. (In those days this was the magic figure which exempted the candidate from undertaking a very expensive 'approved' course of flying training before attempting the commercial GFT's.) Although people say that these days the CPL will help a FI set the appropriate standard in their instructing, I found that the FI course I did helped me substantially when I took my commercial GFT's, passing first time, with hardly any instruction.
As has been said above, instructing is hard work. A good instructor will do little handling himself but we still (somehow) manage to maintain the necessary skills to demonstrate the appropriate manoeuvres when required. One seems to spend most of the day bashing the circuit with students of varying ability, getting some light relief on the odd cross country!
I don't think that the standard will drop much if the CPL requirement is dropped. After all, I still get a feeling of pride when I learn that one of the students that I started off years ago who showed a bit more than the average ability has just earned his command on a B737 or something.
P.P.
In my day, I got a FI rating on my PPL because I wanted to instruct and do my bit for the club who taught me in the first place for next to nothing. I did this for 25 years and only started to think about getting my own CPL nine years after I started when I had well over 1000 hours in my book. During that time I had had to sort out the messes left behind by the hour building instructors who appeard, flew like mad and disappeared as soon as the magic 700 hours was recorded in their logbooks. (In those days this was the magic figure which exempted the candidate from undertaking a very expensive 'approved' course of flying training before attempting the commercial GFT's.) Although people say that these days the CPL will help a FI set the appropriate standard in their instructing, I found that the FI course I did helped me substantially when I took my commercial GFT's, passing first time, with hardly any instruction.
As has been said above, instructing is hard work. A good instructor will do little handling himself but we still (somehow) manage to maintain the necessary skills to demonstrate the appropriate manoeuvres when required. One seems to spend most of the day bashing the circuit with students of varying ability, getting some light relief on the odd cross country!
I don't think that the standard will drop much if the CPL requirement is dropped. After all, I still get a feeling of pride when I learn that one of the students that I started off years ago who showed a bit more than the average ability has just earned his command on a B737 or something.
P.P.
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
P. Pilcher, since when have the CAA or JAA been even remotely concerned about what pilots earn? Do you honestly think they insisted upon the CPL before FI just to help struggling flying clubs and poor BCPL instructors and to disrupt wannabe airline pilots? Come off it! You have a down on guys using the FI route as a stepping stone towards an airline career but that is not the reason why instructor pay is low - the reason for low instructor pay is down to profit margins at flying schools and the sad fact is that most flying schools barely break even. In fact, I don't know one flying school in my home county or neighbouring counties that actually makes money. For the large part it's a lifestyle business for wealthy businessmen and women who are looking at playing airports and aeroplanes for a bit until the money (rapidly) gets washed away by our wonderful british weather. It ain't a money making business from what I have seen over the past two years of knocking around as an instructor and if you've managed to eek a living at it for 25 years teaching the PPL then you obviously hit upon a good set of terms and conditions from day one which have been continued by law with each new owner of your club during the past 25 years! Can't knock you for that though.
So how can PPL flying schools afford to pay instructors more? Regardless of that though, your whole argument about instructor quality and instructor earnings has sod all to do with instructor qualifications and the authorities really couldn't care less about who's earning what and when and where, they're only interested in flight safety - we really do not figure that high in the whole equation I'm afraid to say. Deal with it.
VFE.
PS: Most older PPL holders I know who were taught by hour building guys 10 - 20 years ago say they were fantastic instructors. Truth is you get good and bad eggs in any batch - it's easy to blame someone who is no longer around though and those chaps passing thru on their way to an airliner job tend to get the brunt because 2 years later they're not still sat in the clubhouse waiting for the rain to stop.
PPS: We only have your own word that a CPL was not on your mind until 9 years into instructing. Call me ole Mr.Cynical........
So how can PPL flying schools afford to pay instructors more? Regardless of that though, your whole argument about instructor quality and instructor earnings has sod all to do with instructor qualifications and the authorities really couldn't care less about who's earning what and when and where, they're only interested in flight safety - we really do not figure that high in the whole equation I'm afraid to say. Deal with it.
VFE.
PS: Most older PPL holders I know who were taught by hour building guys 10 - 20 years ago say they were fantastic instructors. Truth is you get good and bad eggs in any batch - it's easy to blame someone who is no longer around though and those chaps passing thru on their way to an airliner job tend to get the brunt because 2 years later they're not still sat in the clubhouse waiting for the rain to stop.
PPS: We only have your own word that a CPL was not on your mind until 9 years into instructing. Call me ole Mr.Cynical........
Last edited by VFE; 11th Aug 2008 at 22:46.
Please don't rely on EASA abolishing the need for the ATPL/CPL theory to have been completed for entry to an FI course in the UK.
Sources at the CAA have stated quite clearly that they will oppose this move and, if it goes through, that they will opt out of this section.
Sources at the CAA have stated quite clearly that they will oppose this move and, if it goes through, that they will opt out of this section.
For flight training at a level above PPL, the FI will need to hold a CPL as a minimum.
Incidentally, to be a Flight Examiner at PPL level, a CPL with FI 'certificate' will be the minimum needed; however, for the absurd LPL only a 'LAFI' certificate will be needed....
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
...only started to think about getting my own CPL nine years after I started when I had well over 1000 hours in my book. During that time I had had to sort out the messes left behind by the hour building instructors who appeard, flew like mad and disappeared...
Picking up the messes left by hour building instructors indeed!
I may sound like I'm going on about this and attacking Mr.Pilcher but it's what a post like his represents which irks me - not Mr.Pilcher per se, who may very well be omitting the full story.
Two faced hollier than thou attitudes by those who have been through the mill themselves, used the system and then find fault with those who do the same years later really annoy me so apologies if I seem a tad pedantic about this issue.
VFE.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFE:
Just to clear up a few points: I certainly never earned my living as a flying instructor, I never expected to! I earned my living in the teaching profession for most of the years that I gave flying lessons, indeed it was because I enjoyed teaching flying so much that shortly after I started, I left my industrial career to take up teaching at school full time. Although the CAA may never have had any opinions of the poor wages/fees paid to flying instructors, A.O.P.A. certainly supported the introduction for the B.C.P.L. and subsequently the full CPL for new flying instructors in part for this reason. It was hoped that these changes would enable instructors to earn a living wage and thus produce "career" instructors. Flying instructor's wages are governed by the laws of supply and demand. There are always plenty of people from all walks of life with stars in their eyes dreaming of flying one of those big things on which they ride to go on holiday. These days, it is much more easy to obtain "career development" loans for the purpose of obtaining a frozen ATPL than it was in my day thus there are many more right hand seat jobseekers around than there were. For example, shortly before I was obliged to retire, I was flying with a female first officer who told me that she had an £80,000 career development loan for the cost of getting her flying qualifications. At the time she couldn't afford to pay off any of the loan, merely the interest! The old 700 hours experience goal before CPL has thus been replaced by the perception that (say) 1000 hours makes one more employable. Thus the instructor qualification is the most cost effective way to get such experience so there are still plenty of hours building instructors desperately trying to move into the RHS of a big one as soon as possible to start paying off their loans.
If you don't believe me, check on the fees and income of our colleagues in the rotary wing business. There isn't the same degree of glamour in flying a large helicopter for (say) SAR, air ambulance or poilce work - or an even larger one in the military. Flying training in a small two seat helicopter is much more expensive than in a two seat fixed wing trainer and the instructor's share of the proceeds makes a living feasible.
P.P.
Just to clear up a few points: I certainly never earned my living as a flying instructor, I never expected to! I earned my living in the teaching profession for most of the years that I gave flying lessons, indeed it was because I enjoyed teaching flying so much that shortly after I started, I left my industrial career to take up teaching at school full time. Although the CAA may never have had any opinions of the poor wages/fees paid to flying instructors, A.O.P.A. certainly supported the introduction for the B.C.P.L. and subsequently the full CPL for new flying instructors in part for this reason. It was hoped that these changes would enable instructors to earn a living wage and thus produce "career" instructors. Flying instructor's wages are governed by the laws of supply and demand. There are always plenty of people from all walks of life with stars in their eyes dreaming of flying one of those big things on which they ride to go on holiday. These days, it is much more easy to obtain "career development" loans for the purpose of obtaining a frozen ATPL than it was in my day thus there are many more right hand seat jobseekers around than there were. For example, shortly before I was obliged to retire, I was flying with a female first officer who told me that she had an £80,000 career development loan for the cost of getting her flying qualifications. At the time she couldn't afford to pay off any of the loan, merely the interest! The old 700 hours experience goal before CPL has thus been replaced by the perception that (say) 1000 hours makes one more employable. Thus the instructor qualification is the most cost effective way to get such experience so there are still plenty of hours building instructors desperately trying to move into the RHS of a big one as soon as possible to start paying off their loans.
If you don't believe me, check on the fees and income of our colleagues in the rotary wing business. There isn't the same degree of glamour in flying a large helicopter for (say) SAR, air ambulance or poilce work - or an even larger one in the military. Flying training in a small two seat helicopter is much more expensive than in a two seat fixed wing trainer and the instructor's share of the proceeds makes a living feasible.
P.P.
Please don't rely on EASA abolishing the need for the ATPL/CPL theory to have been completed for entry to an FI course in the UK.
Sources at the CAA have stated quite clearly that they will oppose this move and, if it goes through, that they will opt out of this section.
Also - the IMC will not be abolished - it will be replaced with a Europe-wide "mini-IR" - so it will be better than the current rating. All holders with a current IMC will more than likely just have a slightly different renewal when the time comes and their rating transferred.
Sources at the CAA have stated quite clearly that they will oppose this move and, if it goes through, that they will opt out of this section.
Also - the IMC will not be abolished - it will be replaced with a Europe-wide "mini-IR" - so it will be better than the current rating. All holders with a current IMC will more than likely just have a slightly different renewal when the time comes and their rating transferred.
As BEagle said, the CAA will not have the authority to opt out of the removal of the CPL requirement for PPL instructors, unless the rest of Europe agrees with them during the consultation on EASA FCL, which is highly unlikely, given that the rest of Europe do not have this overblown requirement and the proposal is about attracting new PPL instructors, not putting them off.
And as far as the IMC rating is concerned, EASA are a long way off making any formal proposals on the future of cloud flying privileges for private pilots, which is why they didn't include anything in their notice of proposed amendment for FCL. AIUI, a working group has been established to look into it, but its highly unlikely any proposals will be put forward this year, so people can continue to train for the IMC in the confidence that they will be able to use their ratings up to 2012 and hopefully beyond.
Jez
