Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Honesty required!

Old 24th Sep 2017, 11:41
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Honesty required!

I have not posted for some time but there is an issue burning away which I would appreciate some feedback on.

I operate Leading Edge Flight Training from Glasgow International Airport and the issues have been confirmed at more than one location.

There are 2 main parts;

Instructor

There is a difference between the training for LAPL and the EASA PPL. It is possible for a LAPL to complete some of the training and then be completed by an EASA instructor.

Should it be a requirement to fully explain this to students before commencing training?

I think it should so that those looking to progress have the option do have the advantage of the knowledge of the EASA PPL instructor throughout their course. After all the initial 10 hours training is the most important.

Aircraft

This one was highlighted yesterday when a young lad arrived with his parents for a Sim experience (cannot log) with us aspiring to be a Commercial Pilot. He has had 3 lessons on a 3 axis microlight with a 4th booked. The parents had no idea as we discussed Group A aircraft and the conversion of a LAPL licence.

I think ALL TRAINING ORGANISATIONS should have a obligation to understand and communicate the options available. Training standards need to improve and I believe the above represents a serious hurdle to be overcome.

Comments please?

Allan
flystrathclyde is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2017, 12:50
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is a difference between the training for LAPL and the EASA PPL
The only significant difference is that the LAPL is an abreviated version of the PPL course, and possibly not acheivable in the minimum time frame.
It is possible for a LAPL to complete some of the training and then be completed by an EASA instructor.
Any EASA FI may train for the LAPL, but some EASA FIs are limited to teaching for the LAPL only (Those who do not meet the CPL knowledge criteria) If a student is trained by a FI limited to giving instruction for the LAPL, then all of the LAPL training must be completed before it can be recognised towards a PPL.

I think it should so that those looking to progress have the option do have the advantage of the knowledge of the EASA PPL instructor throughout their course.
Both the EASA FI with and without the LAPL limitation have completed exactly the same FI Course and have been examined to the same standard. The only difference is that one has not completed the CPL TK Exams which probably has very little impact on what they would teach in the first 10 hours. You may recall the many BCPL (Restricted) FIs who formed the backbone of the training industry in the 90s; they did not have CPL TK knowledge either!

EASA has allowed the training of FIs who have this limitation simply because they do not meet one ICAO criteria; they are all trained and tested to the same standard, so should be capable of doing exactly the same job.

As a school you need to be aware that the CAA could refuse to issue a licence if some of the training was conducted by an FI who did not have the privilege to give it. The student would be entitled to request their money back.
Whopity is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2017, 13:02
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whopity,

I value your reply.

We currently do not have any FI's restricted (to LAPL) but am very much in favour of this option.

Rightly or wrongly, we always try to establish the end goal for the student and the briefings reflect this. We will try to push the 'commercial student' to closer tolerances as it will make it easier for them longer term.

We also respect the fact that instructors not restricted to LAPL have already demonstrated a more detailed knowledge (CPL TK) which can only be beneficial to the student.

It has previously been easier to become an instructor for microlights and past experience has often shown that conversion to EASA PPL highlights differing standards.

Allan
flystrathclyde is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2017, 20:17
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It makes no difference whether the FI is restricted to LAPL training only or not. If a student starts on a LAPL course, he/she must complete the course and obtain a LAPL before he/she may convert to PPL.

That's because, despite earlier assurances, she-who-must-be-obeyed at EASA has now dictated that no LAPL training credit towards the PPL will be extended to a pilot who does not already hold a LAPL...

Nonsense, I agree.

So students need to know that, as far as the LAPL is concerned, they may not change courses mid-stream.... (If that can be proved, of course!)
BEagle is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2017, 21:07
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
It makes no difference whether the FI is restricted to LAPL training only or not. If a student starts on a LAPL course, he/she must complete the course and obtain a LAPL before he/she may convert to PPL.

That's because, despite earlier assurances, she-who-must-be-obeyed at EASA has now dictated that no LAPL training credit towards the PPL will be extended to a pilot who does not already hold a LAPL...

Nonsense, I agree.

So students need to know that, as far as the LAPL is concerned, they may not change courses mid-stream.... (If that can be proved, of course!)
If what you say is correct I can see some issues on the horizon for some!

No proof needed if the instructor does not have the CPL theory and is therefore restricted to LAPL!
flystrathclyde is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2017, 22:19
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think there is a requirement for the student to know what they are about to get into.

The C172 is the biggest aircraft that I am ever likely to fly, and the Bulldog is the fastest. I can do both on my NPPL so I don't see the need to change.

I'm not planning to go and work for Ryanair, or anyone else, so I'm fine. I knew the limitations of the NPPL when I started out on this flying thing, and nothing has changed for me.

I do think that students should read more and buy less. I see people with ten hours and their own BOSE headset....

Let's train people to fight the fight that they are in. The so called "warning" that you can't upgrade an NPPL to a CPL is truly bollocks. Why not do the NPPL or LAPL and find out of flying really is for you, then do a PPL and then CPL when you need to? In the meantime, you are doing the same flying, in the same airframe for less money.

We both know people who have spent more going solo, than it would have taken to get qualified. By all means educate the students, but let's not put them off. An LAPL/NPPL to fly C172/C152 or even a Traumahawk is a perfectly good way to get your first 150 hours.

Then you can start looking at what it's going to take to be a applying for Loganair jobs.

I certainly don't think the Microlight (3 axis or not) is the same thing. If you can't pass the PPL skills test after 150 hours flying a 172 on an NPPL, you probably never will be able to. One of the important parts of that for me, was the cost of medicals to have a PPL.

3 axis microlights have their place, but it is in the production of leisure pilots, not airline bus drivers.
airpolice is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2017, 16:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 6,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The moral of the story is that all courses are PPL courses and if at some point you deceide you are not making it, you peel off and go for the simpler LAPL! Or would you have to finish the PPL first and do a downgrade conversion?
Whopity is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2017, 20:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The C172 is the biggest aircraft that I am ever likely to fly, and the Bulldog is the fastest. I can do both on my NPPL so I don't see the need to change.
After 8 Apr 2018, your NPPL will no longer be valid for flying the C172. It will still be OK for flying the Bulldog.
BEagle is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2017, 20:15
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
After 8 Apr 2018, your NPPL will no longer be valid for flying the C172. It will still be OK for flying the Bulldog.
Well, that might be, but they have said that before, more than once, and yet it is still ok now.

I'm hoping for another deferment, but it is, I must admit. looking slim.
airpolice is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2017, 07:51
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: glasgow
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Limited by the instructor

Originally Posted by Whopity View Post
The moral of the story is that all courses are PPL courses and if at some point you deceide you are not making it, you peel off and go for the simpler LAPL! Or would you have to finish the PPL first and do a downgrade conversion?
This is my main point.

It should be a requirement that the student is aware of the limitations.

Both courses can start without a final decision.

BUT if it starts with a LAPL instructor the choice is taken away from the student.

Not fair!
flystrathclyde is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2017, 09:15
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think that it's much different to learning to drive in a car with an Automatic gearbox.

You can only drive them, unless you sit a manual box test, but if you don't bother, then you can keep on driving automatics. There are driving schools out there teaching on automatics. Here are two I found in a 2 minute google: One explains it well, but the other is not quite so keen to point out the limitations.


Automatic Driving Lessons - RED Driving School


Why Automatic

Do we need legislation to enforce telling people what they can and can't do with a qualification? I don't think so. How many people who want to be a lorry driver, really think they can do it after only learning on a Nissan Micra?

I learned to drive in a Land Rover, so the transition to a Ford Cargo was easy, but I learned at a proper driving school, lots of classroom work and a varied fleet of vehicles to try, no expense spared. Someone going along and doing an hour every Saturday with BSM, may be not so well equipped for the wider challenges out there on the roads.



I have just googled 2 flying schools close to home, they both teach the NPPL but the Microlight one of them has it under the heading PPL Training. That seems wrong.

Whilst neither school has (blatantly) on their website, a path to show a novice how to get Airline ready, I'm not convinced that there needs to be. However, I do think there is potential for some people to be misled, easily, by the content of at least one page of the Microlight training website that I have looked at today.

The NPPL and LAPL are not real PPLs but I think it is the student who should be finding that out, before undertaking the training.

What we seem to have here, is a mixture of careless people and sharp practice. When an unscrupulous vendor takes advantage of a weak (and ill informed) customer, it does the industry no good, but the vendor still takes the money home.


Horses for courses, but some people might be getting taken for a ride, on a pony.



......
airpolice is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2017, 17:07
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LOL....a ride on a pony.......equitation is the way to go. Ride for leisure any equine from Shetland pony to hi-speed racehorse without requirement for any lesson or any licence.......
rifruffian is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2017, 10:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 72
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Slightly off thread, but germane to the alphabet soup that is recreational flying licences, how do we get anybody to sign up for flying training within a system that instructors find confusing? Furthermore, what other recreational activity requires 9 exams? Three worked perfectly well back in the day. I have this forlorn hope that the CAA might use Brexit as an opportunity to repatriate recreational licensing and bring some sanity to the business but, as I'm in the latter half of my sixth decade, I don't expect to see meaningful change during what's left of my instructional career. So sad.
BristolScout is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2017, 09:55
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi flystrathclyde,

As you know, young lad came from us at Strathaven.

I completely agree with everything you say. Our first question to anyone who phones up - please don't all try it at once to check! - and says they want to get a PPL is: do you want to work towards becoming a commercial pilot, or is it for leisure and recreation?

If CP, then we explain they would need an EASA PPL, a Class One medical and have a look at the Honourable Company of Air Pilots assessment courses. So, thanks but no thanks.

If Sport & Leisure, then we move on to explain what we do and invite folk down just to even look at the hangars and see what we fly.

This approach usually leads on to discussion on why the mad differences in licences etc, and what actually is a PPL. (It says Private Pilots Licence on the front of my microlight licence)

The confusion, of course, comes with a 15-year-old like the person mentioned by FS. And their parents, and their grandparents. They want to do their best for their kid, and are slightly horrified at the potential costs! We, since we operate aircraft registered in the microlight category (although structurally and visually identical to their light aircraft versions) from a grass airfield, have lower costs and so lower hourly rates than many.

So we have a customer who has dreams. They don't have the certainty of opinion one, or option two! So we explain that the aerodynamics of the C42 are the same whether it is a light aircraft or a microlight, but also add that some airlines really don't like their candidates to have very much flying experience (I seem to recall an Easyjet advert in Flight Training news saying they wanted less than 85 hours?) so that they know newbie pilots haven't picked up too many bad habits! There are still prejudices about "microlights" too.

But it is handy to have some flying experience.

And, we used to point out, there is a route to NPPL (Micro), a conversion to an EASA LAPL via the NPPL (SSEA) for c 1300 fixed price with Derek J, and then a conversion to EASA SEP.

So if people start training with us and then decide later to become a CPL, all is not lost. (I said "used to" since getting a NPPL M before Easter is not that realistic in Scotland now!)

But if in this category, they have to do a lot of research and soul-searching and make their own minds up! And if they can't, then maybe they are not CPL material!

Anyway, that is what we do, and I think it is as fair as we can be. For leisure flying in Scotland, a VFR-only licence is all that is really needed, in my opinion, and for affordable flying of 30-odd hours a year, a microlight or LAA aircraft is the most affordable way.

Now on to the big picture:

The system is a total mess.

In my opinion, our negotiators have lost sight of the big picture. They are weak-willed because they are frightened of the people they represent, so we now have all sorts of historic mish-mashes on licences and medicals. They are often in-fighting, because we seem to have so many corners, i.e. microlights, home-guilts, Annexe 1 etc

In the perfect world, let's start again.

Three medicals: Class One for, CPL, Class Two for instructors (I think they should have a slightly higher medical requirement than their students) and self-declaration for leisure pilots.

Two licences. EASA SEP for the ICAO compliant foundation for a CPL, and a LAPL/NPPL equivalent for leisure flyers.

Differences training (i.e. tailwheels weight shift microlight etc) as sign-offs.

Separate instructor ratings, all allowing money-earning, for the two licences.

Cross-crediting for those wanting to move up the ladder from LAPL/NPPL to EASA.

Wouldn't that be easy!

Now, as a final thought. In my scenario I haven't even mentioned PPL !

So what do we do when someone calls and says: I want a PPL?

Because, they think a PPL is the flying equivalent of a car driving licence!

Imagine if when you went to driving school you had to answer 100 questions about how and what and where you wanted to drive, now and in the next 10 years!
xrayalpha is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.