Restricted Private Pilot Flight Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Basingstoke
Age: 48
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL!
I reckon there's a lot of manoevering around the PPL instructors not able to be paid anyway. Most people instructing on PPL will be part time, doing it for the love of flying/satisfaction of teaching. I think most clubs probably don't 'pay' them, but I'm sure some might receive generous 'travel expenses' perhaps a meal on duty or favourable rates when they hire a plane for their own purposes.
I never poisoned anyone. That I know of!
I reckon there's a lot of manoevering around the PPL instructors not able to be paid anyway. Most people instructing on PPL will be part time, doing it for the love of flying/satisfaction of teaching. I think most clubs probably don't 'pay' them, but I'm sure some might receive generous 'travel expenses' perhaps a meal on duty or favourable rates when they hire a plane for their own purposes.
I never poisoned anyone. That I know of!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grandfather rights...
There seems to be a bit of confusion here.
If you have a pre-2000 PPL, with an FI rating, you CAN be paid.
In order to receive payment for flight instruction, an
instructor must hold a valid professional pilots licence and
valid JAR-FCL Class 1 Medical Certificate.
Instructors who hold valid private pilot licences and valid
JAR-FCL Class 2 Medical Certificate are entitled to
instruct but cannot receive payment for this service*.
* This does not apply to the holder of a UK PPL(H)
who qualified prior to 1 January 2000 under national
arrangements
Boffo.
If you have a pre-2000 PPL, with an FI rating, you CAN be paid.
In order to receive payment for flight instruction, an
instructor must hold a valid professional pilots licence and
valid JAR-FCL Class 1 Medical Certificate.
Instructors who hold valid private pilot licences and valid
JAR-FCL Class 2 Medical Certificate are entitled to
instruct but cannot receive payment for this service*.
* This does not apply to the holder of a UK PPL(H)
who qualified prior to 1 January 2000 under national
arrangements
Boffo.
ewsd02
Unpaid PPL flying instructors are just what flying training and Aviation want - they just aren't what paid instructors want.
To look at your points.
1. MPL means lesss work for flying schools, thus unpaid instructors reduce their cost base and allow them to keep in business.
2. Lots of instructors chasing few jobs, there are few jobs because of the global down turn, so flying schools are less likely to go bust if they have unpaid instructors.
3. Credit crunch hitting bookings, thus flying schools have to reduce their cost base, see 1 and 2 for the answer.
4. Fuel costs, see 1, 2 and 3 for the solution for the flying schools.
5. See 4.
6. Does a PA28 flown by a CPL holder make less noise or burn less fuel? If not then if environmental protests are reducing bookings then see 1 through 5 above for the best thing for the flying schools.
7. Aircrashes in the news recently - Turkish Airlines 737- ATPL holder in the left hand seat. Cogan Dash 8 - ATP rated pilot in the left hand seat. United (or whatever) Airbus - ATP rated pilot in the left hand seat. None of these had anything to do with instructors who hold PPLs, unless they reduce the number of people learning to fly thus schools have to reduce their cost base. In that case see 1 to 6 above.
You're right, those wishing to instruct for a PPL should be good enough to hold a CPL. They have to prove their level of knowledge by passing the CPL written tests and they have to prove their ability to instruct and fly the aircraft on the same instructor course and test as a CPL holder. However whilst they might have the ability, they may not have the money to pay for it. If someone wants to instruct one or two days a week part time why should they have to pay for CPL training on a complex type and for a flight test with the CAA in said complex type when almost all PPL training is done in fixed gear, fixed pitch singles. Being able to fly complex single, or a complex twin or a turboprop or a jet doesn't make any difference to the way I instruct on a C152 and probably wouldn't for a PPL holder with an instructors rating either.
I am, by the way, to some extent playing devils advocate here. I don't think that anyone should instruct for nothing. But I do think that PPL holders should be able to be paid to instruct, if they meet the required standard.
Unpaid PPL flying instructors are just what flying training and Aviation want - they just aren't what paid instructors want.
To look at your points.
1. MPL means lesss work for flying schools, thus unpaid instructors reduce their cost base and allow them to keep in business.
2. Lots of instructors chasing few jobs, there are few jobs because of the global down turn, so flying schools are less likely to go bust if they have unpaid instructors.
3. Credit crunch hitting bookings, thus flying schools have to reduce their cost base, see 1 and 2 for the answer.
4. Fuel costs, see 1, 2 and 3 for the solution for the flying schools.
5. See 4.
6. Does a PA28 flown by a CPL holder make less noise or burn less fuel? If not then if environmental protests are reducing bookings then see 1 through 5 above for the best thing for the flying schools.
7. Aircrashes in the news recently - Turkish Airlines 737- ATPL holder in the left hand seat. Cogan Dash 8 - ATP rated pilot in the left hand seat. United (or whatever) Airbus - ATP rated pilot in the left hand seat. None of these had anything to do with instructors who hold PPLs, unless they reduce the number of people learning to fly thus schools have to reduce their cost base. In that case see 1 to 6 above.
You're right, those wishing to instruct for a PPL should be good enough to hold a CPL. They have to prove their level of knowledge by passing the CPL written tests and they have to prove their ability to instruct and fly the aircraft on the same instructor course and test as a CPL holder. However whilst they might have the ability, they may not have the money to pay for it. If someone wants to instruct one or two days a week part time why should they have to pay for CPL training on a complex type and for a flight test with the CAA in said complex type when almost all PPL training is done in fixed gear, fixed pitch singles. Being able to fly complex single, or a complex twin or a turboprop or a jet doesn't make any difference to the way I instruct on a C152 and probably wouldn't for a PPL holder with an instructors rating either.
I am, by the way, to some extent playing devils advocate here. I don't think that anyone should instruct for nothing. But I do think that PPL holders should be able to be paid to instruct, if they meet the required standard.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Wales
Age: 42
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a club were taken to court how would they prove that they did not charge a customer commercial rates for the services of a non commercial flight instructor.
I recently had a quote for over £25k for some painting in my apartment block along with the closest quote at nearly £26k.
I was surprised that when the Painters turned up they were Polish and their foreman Scottish. So should I complain that I should get the service cheaper due to them using Polish workers? Am I paying the Polish painters or am I paying the company based in Essex?
I'm paying the company for a 'commercial' service, but what they do with their money is up to them. The job was carried out to a very high level and I think everybody is happy with the work.
Same applies to flying.
You pay the school for a service.
School pays the instructor for a service
If the school is restricted by law not to pay the (PPL) Instructor then I guess the school/club is doing right. But as said, the Instructor only holding a PPL might eat for free, have staff rates for personal AC rental, and maybe a discount will be given when the said PPL FI will want to do a CPL/MEP/IR etc.
Personally I'd have no issue with it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alphamale
sounds like a reasonable argument until you realise that the painter and paint company do not have legislation specifically stating that only commercial paint license holders can be paid.
e.g. client is paying therefore it is a commercial profit driven contract, ANO regulations and definitions apply, surely ?
Analogy - If I pay an organisation (without an AOC) to get me to France in a light aircraft and they employ a PPL for free and pocket the dosh are you saying that that is fine because the poor old PPL didn't get any of the money ? I don't think that the CAA would agree.
sounds like a reasonable argument until you realise that the painter and paint company do not have legislation specifically stating that only commercial paint license holders can be paid.
e.g. client is paying therefore it is a commercial profit driven contract, ANO regulations and definitions apply, surely ?
Analogy - If I pay an organisation (without an AOC) to get me to France in a light aircraft and they employ a PPL for free and pocket the dosh are you saying that that is fine because the poor old PPL didn't get any of the money ? I don't think that the CAA would agree.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Wales
Age: 42
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see both sides of it, but it's just easier to have a flat rate for an instructor and just change it for PPL/Night/IMC and then a different charge for MEP/CPL/IR.
After all, you could have a range of instructors on different pay i.e.
I've researched many schools and not come across any that state, if you use instructor XY then it'll be £30 cheaper per hour due to him only holding a PPL.
On the other hand, I'd like to become a flying instructor one day and if flying clubs start using FI's with PPL's over CPL's in order to keep their costs down then it'll make it impossible to become a full time career instructors for many. It'll be much like the gliding clubs where instuctors teach out of the goodness of their heart
Interesting thread/debate all the same.
After all, you could have a range of instructors on different pay i.e.
- Instructor only holding a PPL but had 500hrs TT
- Restricted Instructor with low hours
- Instructor with 500hrs TT
- Instructor with 1,500hrs TT
- Instructor who's a specialists in IR's
- Instructor who's also the school examiner
I've researched many schools and not come across any that state, if you use instructor XY then it'll be £30 cheaper per hour due to him only holding a PPL.
On the other hand, I'd like to become a flying instructor one day and if flying clubs start using FI's with PPL's over CPL's in order to keep their costs down then it'll make it impossible to become a full time career instructors for many. It'll be much like the gliding clubs where instuctors teach out of the goodness of their heart
Interesting thread/debate all the same.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one observation
It is fairly common practice to charge a different rate according to the qualifications of the instructor, ppl and imc rates are normally different as are cpl and ir. In the USA they have Gold Seal instructors who have demonstrated experience and they charge higher rates.
Key point though is if it is illegal then you are obliged to charge different rates by law like it or not.
It is fairly common practice to charge a different rate according to the qualifications of the instructor, ppl and imc rates are normally different as are cpl and ir. In the USA they have Gold Seal instructors who have demonstrated experience and they charge higher rates.
Key point though is if it is illegal then you are obliged to charge different rates by law like it or not.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus38
My position is that I am a freelance FI and I work independently of flying schools. I don't have any grievances towards traditional flying schools and there are good and bad schools out there and I have worked for both types.
I just think that if the club is not paying the instructor then they are not behaving very ethically if they charge the customer anyway and pocket the difference.
Do you have a problem with the cost saving being passed along to the student ?
My position is that I am a freelance FI and I work independently of flying schools. I don't have any grievances towards traditional flying schools and there are good and bad schools out there and I have worked for both types.
I just think that if the club is not paying the instructor then they are not behaving very ethically if they charge the customer anyway and pocket the difference.
Do you have a problem with the cost saving being passed along to the student ?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belowradar - I'm sorry, but this is a silly argument. There is absolutely nothing in law which ties the amount being charged for a service to the amount which it costs to provide the service. Like it or not that is how market forces work. It follows that a school can charge its students whatever it thinks the market will stand irrespective of what it may, or may not, pay its instructors. End of discussion.
Boffo - Just to clarify your point, both the PPL and the FI rating have to pre-date the rule change for this to work.
Boffo - Just to clarify your point, both the PPL and the FI rating have to pre-date the rule change for this to work.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belowradar - I'm sorry, but this is a silly argument. There is absolutely nothing in law which ties the amount being charged for a service to the amount which it costs to provide the service. Like it or not that is how market forces work. It follows that a school can charge its students whatever it thinks the market will stand irrespective of what it may, or may not, pay its instructors. End of discussion
Legal Beagle - The ANO is a factor here so not simply market forces however I will defer to your legal knowledge Mlud ! My point was an ethical one which the letter of the law may well not give a toss about.
Legal Beagle - The ANO is a factor here so not simply market forces however I will defer to your legal knowledge Mlud ! My point was an ethical one which the letter of the law may well not give a toss about.
If you are a PPL instructor and unpaid chances are that your student will still pay the same club dual rate for instruction.
Is this ethical or legal ? is my understanding correct ?
Is this ethical or legal ? is my understanding correct ?
(2) [A PPL] shall not:
(a) fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of public transport or aerial work save as
hereinafter provided:
(i) he may fly such an aeroplane for the purpose of aerial work which consists of:
(aa) the giving of instruction in flying, if his licence includes a flying instructor’s rating, class rating instructor rating, flight instructor rating or an assistant flying instructor’s rating;
So yes, even though the flight is aerial work because the student is paying for instruction, the PPL FI may still be commander of this aerial work flight.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are a PPL instructor and unpaid chances are that your student will still pay the same club dual rate for instruction.
I think the proper ethical position is to keep the prices at the same level where it is based on the value of the outcome of the service, not the cost of providing it.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: up a gumtree
Age: 53
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So instructors shouldn't be paid now? Whatever will become of the profession. Perhaps instructors should go into the workplace of those who like to instruct for free now and again, and offer to do their job for free.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really - I thought he just stated the law? Any instructor worth their salt should know that anyway. If you are an instructor and you feel enlightened shame on you - you should be able to explain to a student what they can and cannot do with their PPL.
If you are not an instructor disregard the rebuke.
If you are not an instructor disregard the rebuke.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International Civil Aviation
What is needed is an international agreement on standards that affect civil aviation worldwide - it would include training requirements for PPL, who can teach that etc.
This is not just about europe.
Most of the "port and wine by the fire" people who create all these rules are obsessed with regulation and "rule making"
What we need is a body whose mission is to remove rules and to simplify things. On the other hand we could continue to be plagued by none elected bureaocrats inventing rules that nobody voted for simply because it is their job as requlators to create more rules...
Now, where is my proposal for the ULBJ-PPL FI (Ultra Light Business Jet PPL Flight Instructor(Restricted)) ?
This is not just about europe.
Most of the "port and wine by the fire" people who create all these rules are obsessed with regulation and "rule making"
What we need is a body whose mission is to remove rules and to simplify things. On the other hand we could continue to be plagued by none elected bureaocrats inventing rules that nobody voted for simply because it is their job as requlators to create more rules...
Now, where is my proposal for the ULBJ-PPL FI (Ultra Light Business Jet PPL Flight Instructor(Restricted)) ?
Last edited by RVR800; 2nd Apr 2009 at 13:14. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EGCC, EGGP, Relocatable to all UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can i ask (ignoring FCL.205.A) if you are instructing for no pay on a ppl are totally legitimate expenses like petrol able to be reimbursed without issue and also do you need a class 1 or is class 2 ok ?
are many people doing this ? I was looking at it as just a way of getting some extra P1 time while training for atpl/cpl, I wondered if FTO's would not do it due to reasons such as their insurance policy requiring CPL licence to be held ?
are many people doing this ? I was looking at it as just a way of getting some extra P1 time while training for atpl/cpl, I wondered if FTO's would not do it due to reasons such as their insurance policy requiring CPL licence to be held ?