Flight Instructor Work Experience

[AJ1990]

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to put some feelers out and find out if anyone would know of, or would be prepared to offer, work experience at a flight school?

I am a PPL holder and fast approaching the end of my ATPL Groundschool in April. My only ambition is to become a flight instructor and I expect to qualify as an instructor within the next 18 months. The changes being introduced by EASA have led me to consider instructing under a PPL rather than going down the CPL route. Ideally I would like to instruct part-time only as I am also self-employed with a business to also keep me occupied.

I just wanted to see if anybody around London/East Anglia would be interested in a willing volunteer? I'd love to help out one or two days a week in any useful way and gain a better insight into the inner workings of flight training. Wether this was helping students out with Groundschool or simply fueling up the planes I'm open to any offers or ideas.

Thanks

[mad_jock]

All I would care about is that the standard of instructing the OP provides is better than the majority of FI(R)'s coming out of the factorys

With the change to EASA there is no requirement for a CPL to earn money instructor the OP is doing nothing wrong.

And to be honest I would be employing these PPL instructors before CPL FI hour builders. There is a small hope in my head that these instrutors may actually turn the tide with the spiral of dropping standards.

There will always be a space for CPL hour building FI's basically because they are the only ones that will do all the ****e in the school.

[Whopity]

Doing what you intend is simply undercutting people who invested the money and time in completing there CPL.

Undercutting implies a lower cost. From scratch, the cost of becoming a FI with a PPL is likely to be the same as becoming a FI with a CPL. The extra 50 hours PIC required by a PPL holder will balance out the cost of obtaining a CPL. Add to that the fact that after 3 years, any future advances will require a resit of the exams. The pay is likely to be the same so the PPL holder will be less likely to move on, making them more attractive to PPL schools. No undercutting involved!

[RTN11]

If all you want to do is instruct part time, having a CPL will be no real benefit. Many small clubs would be crying out for a decent instructor who didn't want to leap off into the airlines in a year. I certainly wouldn't object to having a PPL/FI(A) as a co-worker, as long as they were good at the job and had sufficent knowledge to teach effectively.

If however you do intend to go the airline route at some point, just get the CPL done first. The groundschool is only valid for 3 years, during which time you need to complete the CPL and IR and have the paperwork submitted. Plus, it will give you sufficient differences training that you can then instruct on complex aircraft if you need to in the future.

In terms of work experience, go around some small clubs and ask in person. Many will have you along to wash aircraft, see how the ops desk is run, and are usually very friendly.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Let's get this right.

Somebody wants to be a flying instructor, is prepared to do the qualifications required to do it under the latest greatest regulatory regime, simply wants to spend a few days helping out at a flying school to see how they work (nothing about flying for free), and waring think's he's undermining the basis of western civilisation. Play fair old chap.

I'm afraid that I'm not able to help AJ1990, but very best of luck in getting some experience, and becoming a keen and capable flying instructor.

That said, if you've got this far, and can potentially afford it, there's much to be said for doing the CPL whilst the exams are valid. It may open up opportunities (such as bits of charter flying within the school you're working for) otherwise denied to you, and does tighten your flying up a bit.

G

[mrmum]

This thread reads a bit strange to me, is there a post missing between #1 and #2?
Genghis, being a mod. when someone deletes a post, could pprune not just remove the body of the post but leave the header or post number, or insert a "post deleted" message. It would help make such threads seem less disjointed.

[mad_jock]

there is post missing.

It was bitching about PPL FI's taking work off CPL FI's

[mrmum]

Thanks MJ
I kind of guessed it was something like that, really, how many PPL FIs do you actually see? I've only come across one in recent years, may be more of course post EASA when they can officially be paid.

[fwjc]

Once got massively chewed out by a CPL FI when I dared suggest I was considering doing PPL FI. As it happens, I'm now doing CPL anyway, but the outburst! Other people in the bar were shocked. It's clearly a sensitive subject.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The post was, as MJ says, critical of the OP. The person who made that post has deleted it. There you go. We all have the right to delete our posts.

At present, in the UK and most European countries, PPL/FIs can't be paid. Under the incoming EASA regime they will be able to - so the route will come open (again, it was there 20ish years ago).

G

[RTN11]

I rather hope that the PPL FI will once again become the norm. There are loads of great guys out there in the GA community, with plenty of decent experience just waiting to be passed on. A lot of these people don't want the hassle of having to get a CPL and FI, when the CPL really won't add anything to their experience. It will hopefully lead to people being taught to fly an SEP properly, rather than the watered down airline SOPs most people teach at the moment.

However, for people who want to go from no flying experience, or low hours PPL, to instructor, there really won't be much difference in cost. You still at least need CPL groundschool, and then you would need to build an extra 50 hours to be eligable for the FI course, so you may as well just bag the CPL in the first place leaving options open for parachute dropping, aerial photography, or anything else that might come your way further down the line.

[BEagle]

While there will still be a requirement for PPL/FIs to have passed the CPL exams, no such requirement will apply to FIs instructing purely for the LAPL.

Arrange your 'PPL' course as a 'modular' course (LAPL + hours building + LAPL to PPL conversion) and it would be possible for a PPL/FI without CPL knowledge to be paid for instructing all but 6 hrs of such a modular course....

• 30 hr LAPL course with non-CPL knowledge PPL/FI(A).
• 5 hr hours-building package at a discounted rate to encourage applicants to stay with the organisation.
• 10 hr LAPL-to-PPL(A) top-up course, of which 6 hr must be flown with an FI(A) who has 'CPL-level knowledge'.

[BillieBob]

The ludicrous thing is that anyone should be so boneheaded as to believe that the demonstration of CPL knowledge will make one iota of difference in that last 10 hours of flight training.

[mad_jock]

Or for that matter make any difference in the 45 hours of JAR PPL instruction/supervision.

[AJ1990]

I hadn't expected the initial response that's for sure! The suggestion that what I was doing was attempting to undercut current FIs was fully unjustified.

I am torn between the CPL and PPL. Better to have more options I suppose, the PPL would significantly limit any opportunities should they arise.

[billiboing]

You can come and help us out if you want. we are really busy as a flight school , and we can pay you in biccies, coffee, and the odd bit of flying!

We might be too far away tho. PM me if you want.

[Mickey Kaye]

Thats a great offer. The power of pprune.

[Captain Stravaigin]

Other Options

A cheaper and also potentially useful half way house is the Class Rating Instructor. You cannot teach ab initio students but you can perform checkout rides and re-validation checks. This may be appealling to a small club. You could not be a mainstay instructor but you might be a handy back up. The course provides back up for the FI course and does not require CPL Knowledge. It is also useful as a standalone rating after you have got your full FI.

[BEagle]

The ludicrous thing is that anyone should be so boneheaded as to believe that the demonstration of CPL knowledge will make one iota of difference in that last 10 hours of flight training.

It seems that certain NAAs didn't like the idea of being non-compliant with ICAO when the original EASA proposal not to require 'CPL knowledge' was put forward. But since the LAPL is a sub-ICAO licence, the proposal could apply to LAPL training - particularly when the 'LAFI' was rejected.

I pointed out that a 'modular' PPL (as I suggested above) would enable a PPL/FI without CPL knowledge to be paid for the majority of the dual training. One of the NAA representatives harrumphed and said "We would not encourage people to find ways around The Rules" - to which I countered that, in the UK, we consider it a national pastime to find creative solutions to blinkered bureaucracy!