Changes To Nppl Instructor Requirements

[Whirlybird]

I didn't vote...because I really didn't understand the three options, and I suspect I wasn't the only one. Were you talking about separate instructors for NPPL, or simply about being paid, or what? Having read the responses, I'm still not voting, because the issues are for more complicated than the poll allows for.

Although having an easier route to instructing for NPPL is a nice idea, it would indeed cause more problems than it would solve. Cessnababe's suggestion is absolutely spot-on. I only ever wanted to instruct (on helicopters), but nearly abandoned the whole idea as I didn't want to jump through the CPL ground school hoops. Now, around two-thirds of the way through an FI course, I wish the time I spent learning about machmeters and jet streams had been spent on something more useful to a new FI(R). So the whole system needs changing. And if I wait long enough, I suppose I might see a flying pig out the window too.

[BEagle]

Personally I found the ability to spot illegally moored airships at night or to tell when the streamers suspended beneath a tethered kite were of incorrect dimension to be jolly useful when instructing at PPL level..........NOT!!

Apologies for the confusion with the poll - I meant 'FIs who hold no higher licence than the NPPL' in my options. I.e.- NPPL plus appropriate hours plus some form of NPPL-level FI course.

[RobinHood]

Agree with Looney_Pilot

I agree with Looney_Pilot

The whole idea of JAR was to tidy up the licencing system. Private pilots operate privately, commercial pilots may operate commercially, simple!

Here we are again "doing our own thing" and re-inventing the old Private Pilot's Licence as the National Private Pilot's Licence.

I think there are one or two issues here:

Firstly, if we revert back to the National licencing system then JAR has failed - at least in Private Pilot licencing terms.

Secondly, the NPPL is hardly what the old PPL used to be. It is in every sense a recreational licence only.

Thirdly, persons undertaking training with an NPPL licenced instructor WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UPGRADE TO A JAA PPL AT A LATER DATE, since their instructor's licence and qualification is not recognised by the JAA. The point here is that it would be wise for someone learning to fly to steer clear of NPPL instructors because if they do wish to step up to a JAA PPL their initial training won't count.

Finally, knowing the general standard of some of our PPL's I run cold at the thought of them becoming instructors. The blind being led by the partially sighted is a chilling prospect!

I'm ok with the NPPL - it gets people flying and thats great for GA, but I say we keep instructing professional.

[sethdg360]

I agree with Robin and Looney, well put both of you

Cards on the table, I am one of those horrible hours building Instructors who doesn't give a sh*t about my students or care at all about my standard of teaching....not

Sorry, rant over but I do find it slightly offensive that because I'm hours building some people assume that I'm not professional in my approach to instructing...what a load of BS.
Yes I am hours building
Yes I am looking for a commercial flying job
Yes, all my students are aware of this
No I will not take students up in unsuitable conditions in order just to get an extra hour in my log book
As instructors we regularly fly with each other to check each other out, and iron out any inconsistencies/errors

I fully intend to continue instructing if possible when I finally get that commercial job. I took up instructing as a method of hours building because I wanted to do it, wanted to give something back, and instil my enthusiasm of aviation into others. I could have looked at para dropping, banner towing, or Aerial photography but chose to instruct. Ultimately I want to instruct with an airline but that is a long way off yet.
The other reason I took up instructing was to improve my flying, not simply gain free flying. I looked at my instructor, his approach, professionalism, ability and thought to myself, I want to be that good.
I'm certainly not there yet (and I now realise he wasn’t either), I still make mistakes, but I'm learning and getting better every time I fly.

I like to believe that through a professional approach I instil enthusiasm into my students and instil that same professionalism into them.
In every profession you get those that take it seriously and give their best and those that don't. I work in IT, which is probably a classic example of this. Changing the system will not change that.

On the contrary I believe that by changing the system and dumbing down the instructors you risk dumbing down GA in general, lowering the standard of students which is ultimately to the detriment of GA. If it is made easier and cheaper to become an amateur instructor then more people will do it unpaid just to get the free flying...is that really what we want to achieve? Also, echo’ing Robins comments, we then run the risk of having the partially sighted leading the blind!! Leave instructing professional, its not perfect, but it’s a darn sight better then the alternatives.

As it is, PPL's can instruct albeit with CPL theory knowledge. I'm sorry, I don't want to offend anyone here, but the only people who I have heard complaining about studying for the theory exams are those that would struggle to complete them. I’m not claiming to be mastermind, but lets face it, the ATPL theory exams are not exactly rocket science are they, and if you can’t hack them then I really don’t think you should consider instructing either.

I do agree that maybe the FI course ought to be changed to include more focus on teaching techniques, and possibly be more stringent on the minimum hours requirements and have a more challenging entry test similar to the CPL skill test, but that’s about it. Personally I’d also get rid of this revalidationl by seminar nonsense and make an instructor revalidation with an examiner compulsory (yes I know it puts the cost up but it would help keep us on our toes).

I have to also disagree with excrab's comment about saying instructional hours shouldn't count. Apologies excrab,no doubt you are far more experienced than myself but I think that is a ludicrous suggestion. Although much of the time I am not actually hands on as the student is flying, I am watching him/her like a hawk, whilst maintaining situational awareness, looking out for other aircraft, monitoring the radio, planning ahead for the next part of the lesson and generally trying to ensure that he/she doesn't kill us. But I guess that really shouldn't count for anything and doesn't improve my ability or airmanship qualities in any way, nor will it benefit me when I finally work in a multi-crew environment.

Anyway, apologies for rambling on, and please no comments regarding any smelling pistakes etc, it's been a long day and I am shattered. I realise I have echo'd Looney/Robins points just less eloquently, but if I re-write what I have written I'll probably tone it down too much.

[BEagle]

Thanks for your reply sthdg360. Please don't think that every 'hours-builder' is tarred with the same brush. Yes, I've known some who would get airborne in poor Wx with a student who hadn't even gone solo in order to 'teach' IF......or who wouldn't bother to supervise their students' solo circuits if there was a chance of going off on a navex with another student in order to grab another hour or two....

The modifications you propose to the FIC entry requirements seem very sensible to me - as does your idea of including methods of instruction during the course. Having to learn how many cabin crew are required on a 145 seat airliner is perhaps less important to a FI than knowing HOW to teach!!

The FI re-validation requirements have recently changed as I'm sure you're aware; from now on the first re-validation must be by flight check - as must every alternate re-validation for existing FIa after the next re-validation. So, if you've just re-validated, you still have the '2 out of 3' option for the next re-validation, but if you choose a seminar then the re-validation after that must be by test - for many that will mean no mandatory test needed for the next 6 years!

After some pretty 'robust debate' recently at CAA HQ, the Authority very graciously gave ground and now changes are afoot for PPL-holding SLMG and Microlight instructors; really all this will do is to protect their existing practices and privileges in a change to 'same thing but under a different name'. The Authority tried to persuade the NPPL Policy & Steering Committee to consider changes to SEP instruction as well, but the committee considered that there were far too many issues at stake to accept such proposed changes at this stage and that considerably more debate is needed. Plus there is no current shortage of FIs; in fact there isn't even enough work for those already qualified right now. Personally I doubt whether that will change until airline recruiting starts ramping up again, so why do we need any 'easing' of current requirements, one might well ask.

[RVR800]

Why not have an

NPPL
NCPL
NATPL
NIR

I know lets just revert back to the way things were..

[mad_jock]

Is going to the seminar cheaper?

140 quid for the test and 35 for the airplane for an hour.

much cheaper than taking 2-3 days off work BnB near where the seminar is etc etc.

Fair enough its 4-5 hours of hard work but its not something you have to relearn you should be doing it as standard everyday.

For what i have heard what the examiners get charged for the renewal of there FIE, I don't begrudge them a penny of the test fee. In fact with the new rules i don't see how most of them can justify holding a FIE from a financial point of view.

As for NPPL instructors I don't think it will work. Most of the NPPL's we have done have been for failed medicals. Even if the student intends to only hold a NPPL, all that have been medically capable have been doing the JAR ppl first then will apply for a NPPL when the class 2 is next up. As long as they keep there SEP current they can get there JAR ppl current again if they choose they need to exersice those rights.

What the NPPL has been good for is quick medical certs. Most of the GP's round us are doing them for free, and yes BEagle there have been quite a few signed in pubs over a wee dram and god knows if the certificate was signed by the pilots GP (or even if the bloke that signed it was a doctor at all).

And i have sent off my form for the NPPL 2 weeks ago. As should everyone on a JAR license before they realise that its going to cost them lots of money to administrate this lot for a one off fee.
Get both medicals done for your next class 1/2 my AME couldn't see the problem if i had just passed the class 1, then if your class 2 runs out and you won't be needing the JAR rights just fly on the NPPL rights.

I can see the AME's kicking up a stink soon as well as their revenue drops off bet that isn't cheap keeping it current either.

Hows things getting along with adding night and IMC rights to the NPPL?

MJ

[BEagle]

Easy answers first - NO NIGHT OR IMC ON THE NPPL (SEP). It is a basic Day VFR licence.

Your allegations of fraudulent practice by local GPs are most worrying. Perhaps I should ask you to contact Simon Janvrin (Head of CAA Med) at the CAA and outline your experiences.

Regarding FI revalidations, until comparatively recently I was highly sceptical of the FIEs' concerns about the previous revalidation requirements. But having seem how minimal both the knowledge and interest were from some FIs at a recent seminar, I now have to concede that the dismal standard of some makes a requirement for alternate mandatory revalidations by test inevitable. But the test fee, aeroplane hire charge and FIE's expenses won't make that cheap for some.

[mad_jock]

I have brought it up with a medical officer when chatting to him about someone with a restricted medical.

But then again if they let it run for a few years with no increase in the accident rate it proves the medical hurdle is pretty much a load of tosh.


MJ

[Croqueteer]

I have over 15000hrs, RAF, 1200 instructing, a long civil career and still freelance for my company on the 146, own my own aircraft (a Jodel) and have I hope at least 10 useful years ahead, and yet it is impossible for me to instuct again without a considerable and on-going expence. I could encourage the young with wild and hairy tales in the bar, but no, it is just not possible to easily pass on my experience. I think the present system is bollox.

[excrab]

Sethdg360,

My apologies - I never intended to suggest that instructing should not be counted towards unfreezing an ATPL because the instructor was not handling the aircraft all the time - after all in a two crew airliner the pilots are only handling the controls directly for a small part of each alternate sector (assuming that the auto-pilot is functional, of course).

The point I was making was that if time spent instructing could not be counted towards the hours required for a CPL/ATPL it would prevent people becoming flying instructors purely to build hours. If you think about it that is not the same as saying that instructing does nothing to improve your airmanship, or flying ability, or lookout, or RT or anything else and is therefore worthless.

Whilst I agree that it would be almost impossible to introduce such a scheme in reality, if it was the case that there was no route from instructing to commercial flying then the results would be :

1. Higher instructor salaries as there would not be a huge supply of people prepared to work at flying clubs for low wages.

2. More airline sponsorship and/or airlines willing to hire newly qualified graduates of modular or integrated courses, as there would be no 2000 hour ex instructors looking for commercial jobs.

This would be of obvious benefit to both career instructors and those aiming for the airlines - and of course is purely hypothetical, as it would be totally unfair to anyone already in your situation.

[Irv]

Beagle wrote:

Regarding FI revalidations, until comparatively recently I was highly sceptical of the FIEs' concerns about the previous revalidation requirements. But having seem how minimal both the knowledge and interest were from some FIs at a recent seminar, I now have to concede that the dismal standard of some makes a requirement for alternate mandatory revalidations by test inevitable.

Sorry if this is a bit of a sideline off topic, but I'm not sure the solution addresses the problem! What you 'saw' surely isn't automatically 'fixed' by revalidation by test! It's better fixed firstly by having better FI initial courses, and revalidation seminars with a genuine pass/fail element rather than the ability to stay in one location for 2 successive days!
What you 'saw' surely should be sounding alarm bells that the genie is probably out of the bottle with instructors moving out of 'restricted' category as almost an automatic right.
I think the time and effort put into arguing the case for re-introducing testing would have been far better spent arguing for a proper course and promotion test for FI upgrades!

[BEagle]

...........all of which I proposed! I certainly feel that there need to be stricter entry criteria for FI courses and my proposals also included a mandatory first FI revalidation by test. Which is being introduced.

It is in the commercial interest of most clubs to get their FI(R)s upgraded as soon as possible to reduce the supervisory burden on the organisation. But since the first re-validation will soon be done by test, I certainly won't be just 'signing-off' FI(R)s once they get their 100/25 without flying with them as well - I don't want some FIE saying that I accept weak standards!

But the FIEs got their way regarding the re-introduction of the test. I agree wholeheartedly that a course and test for FI(R) upgrade would have been a better course of action.

[mad_jock]

What is the definition of being supervised?

1. Is the supervising FI on site?

2. Are they near by say within the circuit

3. Are they on a local nav ex.

4. They are on the ground close enough that they can get in before the police arrive.

6. Out shopping.

I must admit i had my restriction removed in 1 month and the only thing my boss wanted was 2 students getting trained by me and being put forward to him for first solo. But as he was off on holiday leaving me to run the place I was pretty much assured of the sign off.

Thinking about it could actually be possible to get the resriction removed without ever having to teach someone to land. Something which was extremely lacking in method in my FIC.

MJ

[RVR800]

The 'special' weather in Europe

Now that we are implementing

NPPL
NFI

when will we get

NIR
NCPL
NATPL

ie revert back to the way things were

before JAA-FCL which

meant

1. More Cost
2. More Time
3. More Money
4. Oh and half of the redundant pilots in the EU able to take
the few jobs that exist (in the UK) so REDUCED job prospects

This whole FCL implementation is a bureaucratic shambles
and will result further contraction of the flight training sector
post PPSC SFT etc etc..

This whole JAA-FCL thing is politically driven - a pathetic attempt
to undermine the world dominance of the FAA = ICAO
licencing system. It's so typical of Europe with all its inefficiencies.

[jsf]

RVR800

>ie revert back to the way things were before JAA-FCL which<

and would there then be a route to a national ATPL from the JAA ATPL which currently does not exist?

>Oh and half of the redundant pilots in the EU able to take
the few jobs that exist (in the UK) so REDUCED job prospects<

and all the Kiwi's at BMI!

[G-LOST]

JSF

That's the kind of talk that ensures your job prospects deteriorate.

LOST no longer.

[jsf]

G-LOST

You know I don't mean it seriously. If you've got an edge you use it.

As the old saying goes, it's not what you know but who you know.

Deck-Cam

Which bit of land do you want to reclaim first.

Let me know I'll get the photo-exclusive to sell to the tabloids. Anything for a few bucks!!

jsf