Becoming an FI
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes as long as its proper PIC ie you sign for the aircraft and not that FAA thing of two people logging it in an SPA aircraft unless you are the "proper" PIC signing for everything.
Its still not going to save you that much money. And unless you have over 1000 hours EASA PPL instruction under your belt and unrestricted nobody is going to touch you. I am sure but Bose will be able to give us a better opinion.
I looked at it and then decided I wasn't going to do the pay cut or pay for all the hour building or the ratings. I presume a Line training captain on a steam driven manual TP with previous PPL instruction under his belt would be of interest to a school but maybe not.
Its still not going to save you that much money. And unless you have over 1000 hours EASA PPL instruction under your belt and unrestricted nobody is going to touch you. I am sure but Bose will be able to give us a better opinion.
I looked at it and then decided I wasn't going to do the pay cut or pay for all the hour building or the ratings. I presume a Line training captain on a steam driven manual TP with previous PPL instruction under his belt would be of interest to a school but maybe not.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As MJ so succinctly puts it, unless you have real experience just building a few hours to meet the minima are no use to me.
Greenhorn instructors are ten a penny. Experienced guys are hard to find and increasingly so.
Greenhorn instructors are ten a penny. Experienced guys are hard to find and increasingly so.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at it and then decided I wasn't going to do the pay cut or pay for all the hour building or the ratings.
The problem is, as Mad Jock points out, I can't do the pay cut - although I have paid for all the hour building and ratings.
The gearing of the pay structure, certainly with the professional schools, seems to be aimed at the retired airline Captain with a pension behind him or the young pilot with no commitments.
Increasingly the young pilot will be unable to achieve the necessary ratings and the shortage will become more profound - certainly if there's a sudden upturn in the market.
In my opinion, until the level of pay and benefits rises to the equivalent of at least that of a main stream jet First Officer the shortage of candidates will continue - although that in itself will not magically provide candidates with the necessary experience.
The situation at the moment seems to be one where the student airline pilot is being paid far more than his instructors. Maybe not a valid comparison, but an indication of the standard of living that can be obtained.
If you stand back from the situation it appears only reasonable that airline pilots should be taught by airline pilots and not, with all due respect, by PPL instructors who have no knowledge or real experience of the airline environment. That is the way EASA seems to be going by placing increasing emphasis on the 'airline environment' and not the GA-based training route - the MPL license, for example, is a clear indication of this.
I would love to re-locate to Spain and teach there and that is my goal. At the present moment I can't afford to do so - just ensuring I have the 'tools' in place when the time comes!
Last edited by AJMortimer; 10th Nov 2013 at 13:21.
Bose-x,
Might be a bit idealistic of me, but shouldn't you be trying to turn your inexperienced instructors into the experienced ones you need?! I know EASA may have one (or both) of your hands tied behind your back but is it feasible to progress from within?
Might be a bit idealistic of me, but shouldn't you be trying to turn your inexperienced instructors into the experienced ones you need?! I know EASA may have one (or both) of your hands tied behind your back but is it feasible to progress from within?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do try to develop Instructors internally. But there is a bit of a gulf between the level of experience we require to train CPLME and IR candidates and what we can turn out through internal training. The Instructors need the time on twins and IFR that just can't be achieved internally.
EASA may allow an Instructor to teach ME after just 30hrs. But that does not provide the experience we seek or the student deserves. You only have to look at the newly qualified ME Instructor that let a student wheels up a Seneca at the big school next door recently. That sort of event would be catastrophic for us.
The same goes for IR training, students doing intensive IR training needs an Instructor who knows there stuff inside and out. A basic IRI(A) on an Instructor who has not been flying real world IFR just does not cut it.
Its the irony of the industry using the most inexperienced to train the most inexperienced......
EASA may allow an Instructor to teach ME after just 30hrs. But that does not provide the experience we seek or the student deserves. You only have to look at the newly qualified ME Instructor that let a student wheels up a Seneca at the big school next door recently. That sort of event would be catastrophic for us.
The same goes for IR training, students doing intensive IR training needs an Instructor who knows there stuff inside and out. A basic IRI(A) on an Instructor who has not been flying real world IFR just does not cut it.
Its the irony of the industry using the most inexperienced to train the most inexperienced......
I understand your points and I do sympathise with your position. When I went through well known UK modular school (which had an excellent reputation) pretty much every CPL/IR instructor was an ex PPL instructor who had moved up the ladder. None had any line flying or multi-crew experience other than one who was an ex-FE. I must say that we all thought they were very good instructors and I never heard any complaints.
I guess at some point the training pipeline is going to grind to a halt.
I guess at some point the training pipeline is going to grind to a halt.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parson I to got taught by one of that breed.
But to be honest in those days they didn't just go straight into MEP/IR training.
They started out as Assistant FI's
Then as one of the requirements they had to have the applied instrument restriction removed which allowed them to teach IMC ratings then they did a test and became a full FI.
They could then after getting experience teach PPL and IMC do a bit of aircraft ferrying and do the MEP instructor course and teach MEP ratings. In those days there were a lot more MEP's about.
Then once they had enough experience doing that they could be fed in to teaching CPL.
After they were up to speed with that they could go on to IR single then IR MEP.
So by the time they started teaching MEP/IR they had loads of experience teaching instruments to IMC holders, they also had experience teaching MEP and just loads of experience teaching full stop. The MEP/IR was just a combination of skill sets which they already had.
The system these days just doesn't feed instructors through the relevant steps to build the experience. You are still expected to have the experience but there is no real way of getting it. And they have even managed to block people coming back to instructing. Realistically a pro pilot hasn't done VFR commercial level flying since they sat there own LST for there CPL. I will freely admit it would be an amusing flight if I had to do the test profile again without having some retraining. And that's being as current as you can get flying 6 sectors a day 5-6 days a week with pax in the back.
The IR training I think I would be OK at as its what I do as a line trainer but then again what we do in real life is different to what they want for the test.
But to be honest in those days they didn't just go straight into MEP/IR training.
They started out as Assistant FI's
Then as one of the requirements they had to have the applied instrument restriction removed which allowed them to teach IMC ratings then they did a test and became a full FI.
They could then after getting experience teach PPL and IMC do a bit of aircraft ferrying and do the MEP instructor course and teach MEP ratings. In those days there were a lot more MEP's about.
Then once they had enough experience doing that they could be fed in to teaching CPL.
After they were up to speed with that they could go on to IR single then IR MEP.
So by the time they started teaching MEP/IR they had loads of experience teaching instruments to IMC holders, they also had experience teaching MEP and just loads of experience teaching full stop. The MEP/IR was just a combination of skill sets which they already had.
The system these days just doesn't feed instructors through the relevant steps to build the experience. You are still expected to have the experience but there is no real way of getting it. And they have even managed to block people coming back to instructing. Realistically a pro pilot hasn't done VFR commercial level flying since they sat there own LST for there CPL. I will freely admit it would be an amusing flight if I had to do the test profile again without having some retraining. And that's being as current as you can get flying 6 sectors a day 5-6 days a week with pax in the back.
The IR training I think I would be OK at as its what I do as a line trainer but then again what we do in real life is different to what they want for the test.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you say a PPL FI would be lucky to recoup the cost of their training are you including all flight training (PPL, 100+ hours, ATPL's etc) or just the FI rating? At say £7000 for the FI rating and £20/hr that's 350hrs, after which it's cash positive. Admittedly not a great investment on face value but if you enjoy it and feel you've got something to offer then it seems reasonable to be cash neutral on the rating alone if working part time for 2-3 years.
Full time I'd agree there doesn't seem to be enough pay or future (due MEP/IR prerequisite experience roadblock) for anyone to consider it as a career. The issue really is the stepping stone of air taxi work etc to allow IR logged hours drying up though I do agree that people should have done the job in the real world before they start to teach it. I'd guess todays current MEP IR career instructors, having managed to build the necessary experience prior to the new rules, are in a sweet spot and good luck to them.
Full time I'd agree there doesn't seem to be enough pay or future (due MEP/IR prerequisite experience roadblock) for anyone to consider it as a career. The issue really is the stepping stone of air taxi work etc to allow IR logged hours drying up though I do agree that people should have done the job in the real world before they start to teach it. I'd guess todays current MEP IR career instructors, having managed to build the necessary experience prior to the new rules, are in a sweet spot and good luck to them.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parson I really don't have a clue.
The cynical Scotsman in me thinks its all part of a cunning plan to get all airline training through MPL.
The other side of me says its just clueless people making rules up with no thought about how it would work in real life.
The only way I can see to do it is to get 1000 plus PPL instructing get a twin MEP job surveying or the like then after a couple of years doing that while keeping your FI up get your CRI MEP and IRI. Then find somewhere that will let you do CPL and MEP and when you haven't bent anything for a year they will let you do IR 's as well.
I can't see most typical FI's being able to do the MEP IRI leap. You may get a few that will go to SEP CPL training but the next jump is almost impossible unless the school lets them do ferry trips etc to get the hours up for the CRI.
Unless you in the system or step out to a commercial job your pretty well stuffed.
The cynical Scotsman in me thinks its all part of a cunning plan to get all airline training through MPL.
The other side of me says its just clueless people making rules up with no thought about how it would work in real life.
The only way I can see to do it is to get 1000 plus PPL instructing get a twin MEP job surveying or the like then after a couple of years doing that while keeping your FI up get your CRI MEP and IRI. Then find somewhere that will let you do CPL and MEP and when you haven't bent anything for a year they will let you do IR 's as well.
I can't see most typical FI's being able to do the MEP IRI leap. You may get a few that will go to SEP CPL training but the next jump is almost impossible unless the school lets them do ferry trips etc to get the hours up for the CRI.
Unless you in the system or step out to a commercial job your pretty well stuffed.
The other side of me says its just clueless people making rules up with no thought about how it would work in real life.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at CAP804 it states prerequisites for a CRI as "300 hours flight time as a pilot on aeroplanes"
Does this mean you need 300hrs before you can instruct SEP?? That seems to differ from the pre-requisites of an FI(R). Excuse my ignorance but what's the difference between the CRI and FI priviledges?
Does this mean you need 300hrs before you can instruct SEP?? That seems to differ from the pre-requisites of an FI(R). Excuse my ignorance but what's the difference between the CRI and FI priviledges?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's to do the CRI rating you have to have 300 hours at the start of the course
To start the FI course you need 200 hours min.
The FI course is substantially longer and has vastly increased privileges.
To start the FI course you need 200 hours min.
The FI course is substantially longer and has vastly increased privileges.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fundamental difference between an FI and a CRI in EASAland is that a CRI can only teach someone who already has a licence (a ME class rating is a good example of stuff that can be done by a CRI).
He cannot take Joe Public off the street and train him/her for a licence.
An FI, when suitably experienced and appropriately qualified, can do everything that a CRI can, but it doesn't work the other way around.
HTH
DD
He cannot take Joe Public off the street and train him/her for a licence.
An FI, when suitably experienced and appropriately qualified, can do everything that a CRI can, but it doesn't work the other way around.
HTH
DD
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
So what do you think is the way ahead for career instructors, if there is one?! If there isn't, something will have to give at some point surely?
I'm an airline pilot and FI. In many ways, I would keen to become a full-time FI and do the appropriates to become a commercial ME/IRI. However, even with my current experience that would not be a cheap exercise and the salary and benefits would have to be up there with my current package to make it worth my while. Think pushing six figures plus pension/benefits
, which isn't going to happen in my lifetime and is unworkable anyhow as it would increase student costs prohibitively.Not a good situation for anyone.
Educated Hillbilly
Some interesting comments.
MJ, although I agree the requirements for getting the a FI(R) to a FI(A) are quite meaningless under JAA / EASA, for someone to get the no applied instrument removed still requires additional training and a test.
So in that element it means and an JAA / EASA FI(A) with the restriction lifted and a CAA QFI would both still have done an additional test since the initial AFI / FI(R) test.
Further very few schools would take some one would the no applied instruments restriction just recently lifted on as an IR instructor so most would still only recruit those with a reasonable number of hours teaching IMC.
So in that sense there is still little difference between the FI(A) coming from modular JAA route and the old CAA QFI. So to suggest any one is going straight into MEP / IR instructing doesn't hold any water.
I am also know that a certain modular school on the South Coast with an excellent reputation and well known for its standards has employed plenty of MEI instructors with only the minimum of multi hours, yet strangely does not seem to have compromised its standards (I have personally known four of these instructors). While having real world experience may certainly add value to an MEI/IRI instructors ability to teach, I really don't see that a school that is largely gearing its students to go straight to multi crew EFIS really has much call to make large amounts of air taxi experience as a pre-requisite for its instructors. Also just because someone has a lot of experience doesn't mean they can teach it.
The twist to this is when there were air taxi jobs going you would rarely get looked at unless you had 100 to 200 hours of multi time, the only way to get that was working as a multi engine instructor.
MJ, although I agree the requirements for getting the a FI(R) to a FI(A) are quite meaningless under JAA / EASA, for someone to get the no applied instrument removed still requires additional training and a test.
So in that element it means and an JAA / EASA FI(A) with the restriction lifted and a CAA QFI would both still have done an additional test since the initial AFI / FI(R) test.
Further very few schools would take some one would the no applied instruments restriction just recently lifted on as an IR instructor so most would still only recruit those with a reasonable number of hours teaching IMC.
So in that sense there is still little difference between the FI(A) coming from modular JAA route and the old CAA QFI. So to suggest any one is going straight into MEP / IR instructing doesn't hold any water.
I am also know that a certain modular school on the South Coast with an excellent reputation and well known for its standards has employed plenty of MEI instructors with only the minimum of multi hours, yet strangely does not seem to have compromised its standards (I have personally known four of these instructors). While having real world experience may certainly add value to an MEI/IRI instructors ability to teach, I really don't see that a school that is largely gearing its students to go straight to multi crew EFIS really has much call to make large amounts of air taxi experience as a pre-requisite for its instructors. Also just because someone has a lot of experience doesn't mean they can teach it.
The twist to this is when there were air taxi jobs going you would rarely get looked at unless you had 100 to 200 hours of multi time, the only way to get that was working as a multi engine instructor.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't actually commenting on the requirements if they were suitable or not. Apart from the PIC time in MEP.
Just the fact that currently they really don't fit with either group of FI's. The ones that have moved to airlines or the ones instructing as a day job.
Nobody of my peer group bothered getting the applied instrument because it just wasn't worth the money for the amount of training you would get off it.
The old days people were forced into doing it to get the restriction removed.
As for the hard IFR hours in the poo. Yes real life experience will add to the capacity of the instructor. But then again real life adds to habits which may not be acceptable for tests.
Just the fact that currently they really don't fit with either group of FI's. The ones that have moved to airlines or the ones instructing as a day job.
Nobody of my peer group bothered getting the applied instrument because it just wasn't worth the money for the amount of training you would get off it.
The old days people were forced into doing it to get the restriction removed.
As for the hard IFR hours in the poo. Yes real life experience will add to the capacity of the instructor. But then again real life adds to habits which may not be acceptable for tests.