Instructor Requirements?

[oldspool]

By the way how many of those ground hours was spending drinking tea and polishing the spinner

Well, you have me there. Lots of tea, lots of polishing. An important part of the day, the 'taking it all in' bit. Cheers,

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by SoCal App

Compare that to here in the US where as a minimum you need to be a CPL with a CFI/I) before you can instruct - paid or otherwise.

Correct me if I'm wrong however, but I believe that the US does not require the equivalent of 6 months of groundschool and 9 or 14 written exams to get a CPL? It is much more competence than boxes-ticked based?

For me I think that's where it should be - is somebody good enough, and assessed as such? If they are, let them do the job and get paid. If they aren't, what bits of paper they hold aside from that purely associated with that job, should be irrelevant. The instructors rating is the one that matters.

G

[mad_jock]

O why o why isn't there a requirement to have an applitude for teaching in the EU system.

Its horrible to see folk like worms in vinegar getting into aircraft with students. Totally out of there comfort zone and not in a position to teach the joy of flying.

Its quite sad really, I am with Genghis if someone was good enough and more importantly really wants to teach they shouldn't have to jump through a heap of hoops to be allowed to do it.

[LH2]

Hmm... is every participant in this discussion aware that, in France, the vast majority of PPL instructors are themselves PPL holders who do not get paid for their instruction?

This includes life-long "benevoles" (i.e., volunteer instructors) as well as retired CPLs / ATPLs who still enjoy flying and teaching and prefer to do so on a PPL. [ Question: is this to do with the ease and cost of keeping a more senior-friendly class 2 medical? ]

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by GgW

It is common sense, the home builder will have a company that sign off the build and will send out a testpilot to do the few first flights.Why ..because you have bought their kit. After that its just another aircraft. I have flown homebuilds myself, quite a few of them. I fully appreciate what your saying. To get back to the original subject.

Just going off track again for a moment - I'm curious what country you're in? Here in Britain homebuilts are overseen by LAA or BMAA inspectors, very usually modified during the build bringing in a "one-off" element, and then particularly for LAA aeroplanes the manual is pretty much always useless and in particular has little or no performance data. Then of course you get into the PtF airworthiness regime, which is somewhat different to the CofA aeroplanes most instructors are likely to be familiar with.

G

[Duchess_Driver]

You are quite correct that it is the FIC and the FIE that decide whether the person is good enough to instruct... The FIC in his preparation of the candidate and organisation of the skills test and the FIE in his assessment of the skills and knowledge demonstrated on the day.

The hoops that you have to jump through to instruct are there for a reason and rightly so.

I'm sorry, but I am in the 'no' camp on is one.... You want to instruct, that's fine... demonstrate the ability to pass the FI test and carry on. To me that does not automatically give the right to be paid for the privilege....regardless of whether you have 200, 2,000 or 10,000hours. You want to get paid, thats fine - get a COMMERCIAL pilots licence and carry on.

I appreciate I am a dinosaur, my kids tell me all the time!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well to be fair, that's been the rules for years and leaves everybody knowing exactly where they stand.

G

[overun]

"Worms in vinegar". l must remember that one ! spot on. l had a chief pilot like that once, on approaching within 20yds of the aircraft he went into attack is the best form of defence mode.
Some passion on show with this thread and it`s refreshing. The new regs came as a surprise to me as well but my feeling is that ppl or cpl requirement for ppl instruction is not an issue since it takes little more than seconds airborne to tell if someone is suited to the job and should be accepted as an instructor.
By suited l mean actually happy in the air and can communicate.

[Whopity]

You are quite correct that it is the FIC and the FIE that decide whether the person is good enough to instruct...

Which has worked well by carefully monitoring those who hold FIC authorisations but, under the new EASA dynasty, any FI with 500 hours instruction who passes a test with an FIE will be able to conduct FI training at an ATO. No selection, no monitoring no individual authorisation. The very foundations are crumbling!

[Duchess_Driver]

any FI with 500 hours instruction who passes a test with an FIE will be able to conduct

Which is why the FIEs need to apply those standards that they do already and maybe (consciously or subconsciously) raise them slightly to compensate for the lack of the authorization board. Will there still be a requirement to attend the 2 day post authorization board, pre-test preparation/training days? I certainly hope so.

DD

[Whopity]

Will there still be a requirement to attend the 2 day post authorization board, pre-test preparation/training days?

No, that was a UK requirement and never a JAA requirement; the UK can't impose more stringent requirements than the basic regulation.

Which is why the FIEs need to apply those standards that they do already

But this carefully selected group is also about to be diluted by the EASA regulation. To become an FIE:

(1) hold the relevant instructor certificate,
(2) 2 000 hours of flight time as a pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs; and
(3) 100 hours of flight time instructing applicants for an instructor certificate.
FCL.1015 Examiner standardisation
(a) undertake a standardisation course provided by the competent authority or by an ATO

FCL.1020 Examiners assessment of competence
Applicants for an examiner certificate shall demonstrate their competence to an inspector
from the competent authority or a senior examiner specifically authorised to do so

[VFE]

Agree that an enthusiastic and experienced PPL'r with an FI rating is tens times better than a CPL'r with 300 hours simply doing it for the hours. Besides which, there's no money in PPL instructing anymore anyway so what does it matter?!

But be prepared to lose what remains of the old self improver route for career pilots.... now that seems a shame as not everyone can afford Oxford (and hence straight to shiney jet).

VFE.

[Duchess_Driver]

Agree that an enthusiastic and experienced PPL'r with an FI rating is tens times better than a CPL'r with 300 hours

Nope.... not always. I have recently done a couple of FI's who have a significant number of hours over and above the minimum and this just proves that you cannot make such a generalization. They were no better at general pilotage and sometimes they have 'peculiar' ideas which are more difficult to straighten out. A newly minted CPL is just as, if not more likely to be up to scratch in terms of GH precision flying and the knowledge for briefings isn't as deeply buried in their memory banks. Their ideas tend to me more mainstream as well.

Experienced PPL holders instructing shouldn't be discouraged and integrated CPL (fATPL) holders shouldn't be excluded either. Take every case as it comes.

My point is about the privilege of payment for work done.

DD