Is the PPL instructor now a reality?

[shanetouhey]

Hi,

I'm aiming to be a flying instructor and have been finding the costs an uphill battle.

I am now a PPL with 90 hours and have completed the CPL ground school modules 2 years ago.

I am a little aware that EASA were planning to change the rules but has that happened yet? And if no when is it planned for? If it has where can the rules be found now?

What would I need to become a flying instructor from here? I assume some hours and an instructor rating? How many hours and will my CPL ground school still run out after 36 months?

Grateful for any help.

[Whopity]

The PPL Instructor has always been a reality, "Now" is no different. The requirements are written in LASORS and basically as a PPL holder you will need 150 hours PIC to start the FI Course. For this purpose, the CPL theory is valid indefinitely.

Probably the only significant change under the EASA rules is that a PPL holder will be able to be remunerated for flight instruction and examining.

If it has where can the rules be found now?

Try here

[Felix Saddler]

From the above link:

Specific requirements for the PPL aeroplanes - PPL(A)

FCL.205.A PPL(A) - Privileges

(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or copilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.

(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:

(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.

F.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Although it would be fair to say that the permission for PPL holders to teach remunerated is new and somewhat controversial. I'd not be surprised if there are moves to remove that permssion.

G

[high wing harry]

Although, under EASA, PPL instructors could get paid, I believe that the UK CAA is in opposition. They in theory would still have the right to stop this from happening so probably best not to hold your breath on this one!

If you have already done your CPL ground exams I would get your FI rating done now and then maybe get your CPL done as well if you want paid.

The main issue for everyone with the advent of EASA next April is to ensure that anything on your licence is valid and current just in case the rules change and you find that your renewal is much more difficult than it would have been a month earlier.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is a 36 month time period to get the CPL after passing the writtens, and with only 90 hours Shane will need to do some significant hourbuilding as well as complete the CPL course.

Realistically, with winter just starting, the only way to absolutely guarantee achieving that would be to go over to Florida for 6 weeks or so.

Mind you, a couple of months in Florida in the height of the British winter sounds quite nice!

But, expensive of time and money regardless.

G

[BillieBob]

I believe that the UK CAA is in opposition. They in theory would still have the right to stop this from happening so probably best not to hold your breath on this one!

Where do you get the idea that the UK CAA is in opposition? In any case this will, as of 8 April 2012, be EU law and thereafter anyone with an EASA (or JAA) PPL and FI rating may be remunerated. There is nothing that the UK CAA can do about it - they will no longer have any control over flight crew licensing policy.

I'd not be surprised if there are moves to remove that permssion.

Moves by who? Changing EU law is not a simple or a quick process and any such change would require the agreement of all member states.

[topoverhaul]

In fact next year we are going back to the situation that existed in the UK pre 90s where PPL FIs were remunerated and hour built until they could obtain a CPL with 700 hours. The restriction was that both the instructor and student had to be a member of the same flying club. We still have a few BCPL holders who date from that era. My understanding is that the UK CAA, probably allied with France, pushed to return to that situation with opposition coming from elsewhere in Europe.

[Whopity]

My understanding is that the UK CAA, probably allied with France

As most of the regulations come from committees where the CAA was barely represented, I doubt that they had any influence on this decision at all. French instructors are normally volunteers who don't get paid, so its of no consequence to them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by shanetouhey

Hi,

I'm aiming to be a flying instructor and have been finding the costs an uphill battle.

I am now a PPL with 90 hours and have completed the CPL ground school modules 2 years ago.

I am a little aware that EASA were planning to change the rules but has that happened yet? And if no when is it planned for? If it has where can the rules be found now?

What would I need to become a flying instructor from here? I assume some hours and an instructor rating? How many hours and will my CPL ground school still run out after 36 months?

Grateful for any help.

From your post it would seem your 90 hours were accrued over several years thus indicating you probably have only been flying realtively sporatically. Setting aside the whole regulatory question of how/what/when you can instruct it is important to realise you still have to demonstrate the same level of flying skills regardless of your license type.

I have been instructing off and on for over 20 years and I have yet to meet a 90 hour PPL that had sufficent personal flying skills to allow them to start the flight instructor course. Therefore I think it would be wise to plan on a considerable amount of dual training to consolidate the foundation flying skills before you couldl start training for the FI rating. If you want an idea of where you are I would recommend you get an instructor and fly a complete mock PPL flight test. In Canada flight manoevers are rated on a 4 point scale.

1) fail
2) pass but with major errors
3) pass with minor errors
4) an essentially perfect demonstration of the manoever.

To move on to a FI Course I would expect to see no 2's just 3's and multiple 4's before I would recommend they proceed to the FI course.

Please note this post is not meant to slag PPL holders, but only to point out my personal observations and experiences.

[Whopity]

That's why he needs 250 hours total, including 150 hours PIC and a pre entry flight test before being eligible for a FI Course. We don't have a grading system in the UK, its not PC in Europe!

[shanetouhey]

Thanks

Thanks for your advise all.

Shane

[WestWind1950]

in Germany instructors have ALWAYS been allowed to be payed, before JAR-FCL and after. And no restrictions to being a club member, either. Club instructors often contribute their pay back to the club, but that's usually optional. Being paid to instruct helped me pay for further training.

Before I got my CPL, it was odd that I could instruct beginners (and get paid for it), yet I was not allowed to fly commercial sight seeing flights!

[Genghis the Engineer]

For what it's worth I recently did the CRI course, and passed the skill test. Whilst not an identical skill test to the one for FI(R), from what I understand the length and standards are broadly similar.

I was having to fly, from the right hand seat, to similar standards to those I had to display during my CPL (not PPL) skill test, whilst talking about it for about half the time, or picking up somebody else's errors the other half.

I loved every minute of it, and am really enjoying the instruction I'm doing - but as a CPL with 4-figure hours, I was heavily challenged. I really can't imagine meeting those standards when I had a PPL and a few hundred hours.

Which is not to put you off - very best of luck, just be realistic about how far you almost certainly have to go.

G

[Pilot DAR]

I very much support the sentiment of Big Piston's post. I'm not here to slag anyone, but I simply believe that as altruistic as it may seem, a 90 hour, 150 hour, or 250 hour pilot is very unlikely to have the total flying experience themselves to comprehensively train another person to fly. I agree that it would be possible with a very broad array of flying types and circumstances, that 250 hour pilot might have adequate experience to begin elements of a student's training, but that experience is not obtained "hour building" around the circuit or local flying area in 250 hours.

I could care less what the description of the license is (PPL vs CPL etc.) it's the flying experience which makes the pilot. I held a PPL with great pride, until with about 5900 hours, it wa necessary for me to obtain a CPL. The ground school challenged me (things had changed in 31 years) the flying portion was not the least bit challenging, and was completed in the shortest possible time as dictated by the examiner. I would think so, as I took my flight test in the aircraft I have owned for 24 years!

When I had 500 hours, I thought I knew it all. When I had a 1000 hours, I realized that I had a lot more to learn about flying. Now, with more than six times that, I wonder if I will ever really be the good pilot I aspire to be. The examiner though I was worth a whole page of 4's though

My personal and overly hard nosed opinion is that "hour building" your way to the minimums, to then go and teach flying, is just not what any student deserves. Yes there are things you could teach adequately, but a whole lot more experience is due the student. That said, apparently the regulators have identified the minimum experience requirement by a number of hours. I have to "accept" their wisdom, but I don't have to agree....

[WestWind1950]

Dar, when I got my instructors rating 300 hours were required. But as you insinuate, the number of hours does not make a good instructor. You have to really WANT to instruct and you have to be ABLE to instruct. But someone with less then the 300 could be a good instructor, and someone with many more could be piss poor.

I experienced instructors who were "hour building" to get their CPL/ATPL and did instructing only for that purpose (I beleive they needed 1500 at the time). They were in general lousy instructors who just sat in the right seat, made a comment here and there, and you could tell they didn't care. I remember two in particular who, once they had those hours and a job in sight, just left without a word.... and didn't care what happened to their students!

Shane, if you really, really want to instruct, go for it! Fly as much as you can before the course, get that experience under your belt. But never, ever expect to know everything. I learned the most about flying from instructing. It is a very rewarding thing to do.

[Whopity]

from what I understand the length and standards are broadly similar.

The CRI test is much shorter and covers nothing like the range of items on a FI test. There is a huge difference in the standard because you cannot expect anyone to learn in 3 hours what a FI is expected to learn in 30 hours. The CRI course assumes the candidate is of a high standard to begin with but lacks any way of verifying this.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Whopity

The CRI test is much shorter and covers nothing like the range of items on a FI test. There is a huge difference in the standard because you cannot expect anyone to learn in 3 hours what a FI is expected to learn in 30 hours. The CRI course assumes the candidate is of a high standard to begin with but lacks any way of verifying this.

To some extent Whopity, you emphasise my point about the high standards required for an instructor candidate.



Of-course, an FI can teach ab-initio, broken down of course into all of the many components of the PPL syllabus, which as a CRI I cannot.

On the other hand, a CRI can work independently without a supervising FI, which an FI(R) cannot.

This sort of shows them as different - albeit that clearly the FI/FI(R) is the longer and more expensive course.



Hence that, for example, the LAA coaching scheme will use FIs or CRIs but not FI(R)s. (Interestingly, they also wouldn't accept me, because apparently my microlight time didn't count as SEP, therefore in their eyes I don't have 1000hrs SEP and despite CPL+CRI am inadequate to the task. Ho hum.)

My perspective as a CRI student was of continuous assessment of my flying standards, and that I would not have been put forward for test if it was not good enough. Indeed, I did extra time above the 5hrs minimum (not 3, on my course anyhow) getting my flying standards from the right hand seat up to scratch, aside from the actual teaching content.

My CRI skill test: 5 hrs plus another 45+ minutes debrief, including two sortie briefs, a long lecture, 1 sortie debrief, 1:50 flying hours - did not seem to me to be much different in length or difficulty to what has been described to me as an FI skill test by friends who have gone that route.

Eventually, I'm sure I'll do the FI myself and can comment more meaningfully, but not this year.

G

[italia458]

I'm not sure how I feel about a 90 hour PPL instructing me. There are already a lot of poor instructors out there that have passed the CPL and have 250 hours so when I see that a PPL with 90 hours can get an instructor rating I shake my head. Pilot DAR sums it up well in his post. Not meaning to slag the OP as I have no idea who you are and what your motivation is for teaching. However, just the regulation that states that such an inexperienced person can teach (blind leading the blind) will mean that the same type of people who eventually got 250 hours and a CPL will be able to instruct now with even less time and experience. Those are the ppl who instruct to build hours. I understand that your motivation to teach and individual personality is a huge dictator in the performance of your teaching, however, there has to be a minimum requirement for experience. Would we allow a university professor with no experience in flying, read through the books before the lesson and then teach a PPL student? Not a chance. Even though the university professor could probably do a better job than a junior instructor depending on how much time the professor put in to learning the lesson before teaching it.

I really do understand that experience isn't everything either. During my instructor rating I had to teach my instructor that he was wrong about the forces in a turn. Then I had to explain recently to him that he was wrong about slipping while on approach. The lack of understanding of slipping aerodynamics and forces in a turn of a Class 1 flight instructor is quite appalling. He tried to justify teaching that the forces in a turn are all balanced because "it's easier for some students to understand"! Congrats for contributing to the lack of knowledge and misinformation of the majority of pilots out there. Having been an instructor for a while I really think the training program needs to be overhauled. I believe a 90 hour PPL pilot could be a great instructor but when that PPL pilot is going through the same training that got a crappy 250 hour CPL pilot to pass the flight instructor tests there is no guarantee that the PPL instructor will be good. When I started out as a flight instructor I had about 340 hours I think. I was constantly studying and as a matter of fact before I came on here I was studying a new aircraft I'm flying. It will never end! The difference between me and some "crap" instructors is that I knew I had a lack of knowledge in a lot of areas and I would always study. I had been taught just like everyone else a lot of crap that isn't true. It's just my personality that I always as "why" and want to learn about why things are. So when I was reviewing material I was taught or learning new material I would always ask why. A lot of the time I wouldn't be able to get an answer that would satisfy the why question so I would research more into it. It was either a) the instructor was correct but didn't have the knowledge to explain why, b) the instructor was wrong and didn't know how to explain it, or c) the instructor was wrong and used a flawed explanation. I've spent hours and hours going through basic theory to make sure that I understand it and to be able to explain it correctly with enough detail. I don't want to focus on myself but I want to point out that there is a lot of misinformation out there and it comes from the textbooks we use and primarily from the instructors who teach it and don't realize themselves that something is wrong.

Like I said I think everything needs to be revamped. The Flight Training Manual in Canada depicts the forces in a turn wrong so I can see why instructors would be teaching it that way, but it doesn't justify it. Someone with a high school background in physics could easily see that you can't turn if the forces are balanced. I also believe there should be an aptitude test before someone is allowed to begin flight training. The reason that's most likely not going to happen is because flight schools are all privately run and they will take anyone who will slap down some money. Eventually with some students the training pretty much has to stop but as an instructor in one case, I could see within about 3 hours that this guy can't be a pilot. Just like a DPE can judge within about 10 min if a flight test is going to go well or not. That 3 hour student couldn't give me a correct answer for 12 minus 7, I explained the definition of angle of attach to him on 5 separate occasions and with a diagram of it on the whiteboard, with everything labeled, he couldn't answer what angle of attack was. I'm not saying he couldn't complete flight training at some point in his life, but he needs to do some serious studying before he starts flight training. He is ~30 years old and I don't think he got his high school diploma.

I think a lot of experienced pilots out there would agree that the level of training and the pilots that are being turned out these days is getting lower and lower. I think it has to do with the fact that flight schools want money and students just want the license with no care about being a "good" pilot. If I could offer one bit of advice to all pilots, it would be to "be a student of aviation". If you're in it for the ladies or for the glamourous lifestyle, etc... get out! You're tainting the reputation of the real pilots! And seriously, if you can't get a girl when you're not a pilot, being a pilot really won't do much at all for you!

[MIKECR]

On the other hand, a CRI can work independently without a supervising FI, which an FI(R) cannot.

This sort of shows them as different - albeit that clearly the FI/FI(R) is the longer and more expensive course.

And that Genghis is one of the strange anomalies that exists with the CRI rating and JAR. An FI(R) rating requires theoretical knowledge training to CPL level, plus minimum 30 hours flying training and 125 hours groundschool. A CRI rating only requires minimum 3 hours flying training and 30 hours groundschool, and doesnt require CPL theoretical knowledge. Yet, the newly qualified FI is the one who is restricted. It does of course mean that any 'ab initio' training is properly supervised but or non ab initio training(SEP revals, tailwheel differences, VP differences etc) the newly qualified FI must still be supervised, yet the new CRI dosn't.........bizarre!