View Poll Results: SHOULD THERE BE CHANGES TO NPPL INSTRUCTOR REQUIREMENTS
No changes to current requirements should be permitted
30
38.96%
NPPL FIs should NOT be allowed to instruct for remuneration
14
18.18%
NPPL FIs should be allowed to instruct for money
33
42.86%
Voters: 77. This poll is closed
Changes To Nppl Instructor Requirements
Thread Starter
Changes To Nppl Instructor Requirements
I would like to seek people's views on the requirements for flight instruction at up to NPPL level. For example, would you be happy if it was possible to receive payment for instruction so long as you'd completed an appropriate course? Or should there be no changes to current requirements? Remember that there used to be a PPL/FI rating, a Restricted BCPL/FI rating and the BCPL/FI rating - all of which disappeared under JAR-FCL. But the requirements for instructing might not be the same as those for the CPL - so even if instructors were being paid to instruct at NPPL level and were building up their hours as a consequence, they might then still have to do the full CPL course to move on to commercial flying, IFR instructing, multi-engine instructing etc?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A return to a BCPL/FI-type rating would seem appropriate as the current requirements (particularly the ground school) for the JAR FI rating are farcical; it could be argued that the current situation prevents a good many 'career' instructors from entering the field and effectively prohibits anyone but hours-builders on their way to an airline career. After all, do you need to know about the weather between Recife and Dakar to teach circuits in the UK?
If you have a system whereby all FIs have to hold professional licences you will have an instructor body top-heavy with hours builders. They are not necessarily (careful use of word!) the best teacher material.
Let's have PPL + Suitable Experience + Entry Assessment + FI Course = some sort of (N)CPL(Restricted to FI privileges) / FI (R) with a similar upgrade path from (R) to full FI as currently exists.
Let's have PPL + Suitable Experience + Entry Assessment + FI Course = some sort of (N)CPL(Restricted to FI privileges) / FI (R) with a similar upgrade path from (R) to full FI as currently exists.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Earth, Ground, Land, Grass
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, if there suddenly became a NPPL FI rating then us mere mortals who need to build hours by instructing would find a FI job even harder to come by and so getting to the airlines even harder than it is now.
I vote “no change” as this would probably reduce the only route that we have at the moment to gain hours.
HfP
I vote “no change” as this would probably reduce the only route that we have at the moment to gain hours.
HfP
Thread Starter
Thanks to all who have responded to the poll. Interestingly, in only a few posts I've seen precisely the cross-section of replies I expected. If the total of poll responses gets to over 50, I'll forward this to certain interested parties for their information.
A very interesting poll. I notice that an equal number of respondents think that there should be no change or that NPPL instructors should be allowed to earn money, and only a very small proportion think that no renumeration should be allowed.
It is also noticeable how few can be bothered to vote!
What is also interesting is that the responses from instructors seem to be concerned not with the effects that the rating might have on the standard of training offered to the student, but the effect on the instructors ability to hour build and move onto the airlines as quickly as possible.
I would suggest that the best thing would be a return to the old system of PPL instuctors and not being able to sit the ATPL writtens until you had obtained 700 hours. As I recall from my formative years in the right hand seat of a C152 the students learnt just as much (as has been mentioned the study of climatology is not required to teach VFR cross-country planning), and it used to mean that most instructors stayed for at least two years whilst working through CPL writtens, CPL flight tests and eventually the IR.
Historically, introduction of the BCPL, frozen ATPL and 250 hour modular CPL route has made no difference to the standards of instruction, and little difference to instructors salaries, at least not at the club with which I have been associated for the last 20 years.
If you really want to encourage career instructors the answer is to say that hours obtained instructing shouldn't count towards the issue of a CPL or ATPL. This would result in only those interested in instructing starting the course, with eventually less low houred pilots prepared to instruct for nothing thus forcing clubs to increase salaries. At the same time the lack of self-improvers would force airlines to offer more sponsorships, to the advantage of those airline wannabes who have no interest in teaching.
This is only an opinion - hopefully it may stimulate some discussion!
It is also noticeable how few can be bothered to vote!
What is also interesting is that the responses from instructors seem to be concerned not with the effects that the rating might have on the standard of training offered to the student, but the effect on the instructors ability to hour build and move onto the airlines as quickly as possible.
I would suggest that the best thing would be a return to the old system of PPL instuctors and not being able to sit the ATPL writtens until you had obtained 700 hours. As I recall from my formative years in the right hand seat of a C152 the students learnt just as much (as has been mentioned the study of climatology is not required to teach VFR cross-country planning), and it used to mean that most instructors stayed for at least two years whilst working through CPL writtens, CPL flight tests and eventually the IR.
Historically, introduction of the BCPL, frozen ATPL and 250 hour modular CPL route has made no difference to the standards of instruction, and little difference to instructors salaries, at least not at the club with which I have been associated for the last 20 years.
If you really want to encourage career instructors the answer is to say that hours obtained instructing shouldn't count towards the issue of a CPL or ATPL. This would result in only those interested in instructing starting the course, with eventually less low houred pilots prepared to instruct for nothing thus forcing clubs to increase salaries. At the same time the lack of self-improvers would force airlines to offer more sponsorships, to the advantage of those airline wannabes who have no interest in teaching.
This is only an opinion - hopefully it may stimulate some discussion!
Thread Starter
Many organisations have demonstrated that those of most value to an airline are those who have been correctly identified as having the necessary aptitude. But this is expensive for an airline; first you have to run a selection process and then you have to fund a training programme. Much, much cheaper instead for the bean counters to rely upon a queue of pilots who have obtained CPLs and FI ratings and then worked for a few years teaching at PPL level - even though they may not succeed at Jet training, there'll be other aspirants to take their place..... Some of whom might even have paid for their own type ratings - a very good deal for the airline and an extremely poor one for the struggling newcomer.
Airline training, with a very few exceptions, is in a pretty poor state right now. But with more schools requiring aptitude selection, better quality candidates will ultimately emerge. What is perhaps needed is for the airlines to invest far more in their own futures by committing to funding their own cadet training progrmmes for which they themselves must carry the financial risk; however, such risk would be minimal given proper selection in the first place.
Flying instruction should not been seen as a 'necessary' route to the airlines; it is right now though, simply because there is no alternative. Having paid for their own qualifications, 'hours builders' are struggling to repay their costs and build their total time. Hardly surprising then that these folk wouldn't be terribly keen on seeing their only chance taken away by a flood of other FIs entering the arena who won't have had to invest anything like the time, effort and hard cash as the current crop (c.40%) of FIs have had to.
Airline training, with a very few exceptions, is in a pretty poor state right now. But with more schools requiring aptitude selection, better quality candidates will ultimately emerge. What is perhaps needed is for the airlines to invest far more in their own futures by committing to funding their own cadet training progrmmes for which they themselves must carry the financial risk; however, such risk would be minimal given proper selection in the first place.
Flying instruction should not been seen as a 'necessary' route to the airlines; it is right now though, simply because there is no alternative. Having paid for their own qualifications, 'hours builders' are struggling to repay their costs and build their total time. Hardly surprising then that these folk wouldn't be terribly keen on seeing their only chance taken away by a flood of other FIs entering the arena who won't have had to invest anything like the time, effort and hard cash as the current crop (c.40%) of FIs have had to.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting that almost all of the comments in this thread concern themselves with the effect on instructors if a separate NPPL instructor rating were introduced. What about the effect on students and FTOs? I am not concerned about the quality of instruction from an NPPL instructor since a suitably structured NPPL FIC course could make that a non-issue.
I am concerned about the effects on a student who initially embarks on a NPPL course taught by an NPPL instructor and subsequently decides to obtain a JAR-PPL. How would any FTO explain to the student that the hours which he has flown count for nothing towards a JAR-PPL since all of the required instruction for the JAR-PPL has to be conducted by a JAR qualified instructor?
As a CFI I would dread having to tell a student that the hours he flew with Instructor 1 (an NPPL instructor) do not count towards his JAR-PPL but had he flown with instructor 2 (a JAR instructor) he would have been taught exactly the same things in the same aircraft at the same cost but the hours, even although the student had originally intended gaining a NPPL, would count towards his JAR-PPL. Do you wish to have that conversation?
I am concerned about the effects on a student who initially embarks on a NPPL course taught by an NPPL instructor and subsequently decides to obtain a JAR-PPL. How would any FTO explain to the student that the hours which he has flown count for nothing towards a JAR-PPL since all of the required instruction for the JAR-PPL has to be conducted by a JAR qualified instructor?
As a CFI I would dread having to tell a student that the hours he flew with Instructor 1 (an NPPL instructor) do not count towards his JAR-PPL but had he flown with instructor 2 (a JAR instructor) he would have been taught exactly the same things in the same aircraft at the same cost but the hours, even although the student had originally intended gaining a NPPL, would count towards his JAR-PPL. Do you wish to have that conversation?
Thread Starter
A very valid point. But if there was only 1 type of PPL, remunerated instruction for which might be given by non-commercial licence holders, how would that change your view?
I suspect that most opposition would come form current CPL-with-ATPL-knowledge 'hours builders' who are hoping for the airlines as soon as possible?
I suspect that most opposition would come form current CPL-with-ATPL-knowledge 'hours builders' who are hoping for the airlines as soon as possible?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have voted for the current system to remain.
The reasons are as follows;
1. It is possible to add an instructor rating to a JAA PPL. The only reason why it can't be added to a NPPL (SEP) is that there is no system in place for the training and qualification of instructors.
2. The only issue regarding instructor training is the requirement for prospective instructors to demonstrate a level of theoretical knowledge that is above the simple basic PPL level.
This is in keeping with almost every other training system. How many people would spend money sending their children to a school if the teachers were only educated to O level standard?
3. There is a clear upgrade system from NPPL to JAR PPL. This would dissapear if instructors were not JAA qualified.
IMHO, within 5 years, the majority of new NPPLs who are not medically restricted will have either upgraded to JAR in oprder to expand horizons or stopped flying because the back yard is boring.
So the only "problem" is the amount of knowledge that an instructor (teacher) must have.......OK......if school leavers start complaining that University education is too hard do we consider making it possible for school leavers to sit a short course before returning to teach students at their school?
It's not about money. It's about quality.
DFC
The reasons are as follows;
1. It is possible to add an instructor rating to a JAA PPL. The only reason why it can't be added to a NPPL (SEP) is that there is no system in place for the training and qualification of instructors.
2. The only issue regarding instructor training is the requirement for prospective instructors to demonstrate a level of theoretical knowledge that is above the simple basic PPL level.
This is in keeping with almost every other training system. How many people would spend money sending their children to a school if the teachers were only educated to O level standard?
3. There is a clear upgrade system from NPPL to JAR PPL. This would dissapear if instructors were not JAA qualified.
IMHO, within 5 years, the majority of new NPPLs who are not medically restricted will have either upgraded to JAR in oprder to expand horizons or stopped flying because the back yard is boring.
So the only "problem" is the amount of knowledge that an instructor (teacher) must have.......OK......if school leavers start complaining that University education is too hard do we consider making it possible for school leavers to sit a short course before returning to teach students at their school?
It's not about money. It's about quality.
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Shoreham West Sussex
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting discussion. In my view, everyone is a little off the mark. Really what is needed is a completely separate and discrete licence purely for instructors. It would not depend on having CPL or ATPL knowledge, since there is a lot of material in those ground exams which is not relevant to instructing. Instead it would contain a very large core of teaching techniques and development of presentation skills, combining the relevant parts of the ground school material with a proper teaching qualification.
There would be no route from this licence to an airline licence as it would be purely a teaching qualification. In my view this is the only way forward to establish the serious career instructor as a true professional not an hours builder. Hours building by instructing should be completely abolished. As one post stated, we would not allow the holder of O levels to return and teach at a secondary school. I am constantly disappointed by the total inability of FIC candidates to spell even basic words such as aileron or longitudinal, to write a well-constructed sentence or even to write in a straight line on a white board.
If the route to instructing was only by way of a "teaching diploma" we would weed out all of the hours builders and perhaps begin to gain credibility within the aviation community. Such an enhancement of status might even lead to increased rewards (heaven forbid!).
There would be no route from this licence to an airline licence as it would be purely a teaching qualification. In my view this is the only way forward to establish the serious career instructor as a true professional not an hours builder. Hours building by instructing should be completely abolished. As one post stated, we would not allow the holder of O levels to return and teach at a secondary school. I am constantly disappointed by the total inability of FIC candidates to spell even basic words such as aileron or longitudinal, to write a well-constructed sentence or even to write in a straight line on a white board.
If the route to instructing was only by way of a "teaching diploma" we would weed out all of the hours builders and perhaps begin to gain credibility within the aviation community. Such an enhancement of status might even lead to increased rewards (heaven forbid!).
Thread Starter
cessnababe - very good points as one would expect! The question was posed mainly because of certain ideas mooted by the Authority. Under EASA it's likely that there will only be a single type of PPL, a CPL and an ATPL. Whether a different type of Instructional Licence is needed or whether exisiting methods should be amended are questions which can't be answered without also holding a Regulatory Impact Assessment - and that would attract criticism from current 'hours builders' who, rightly or wrongly, would probably allege that change could threaten their livelihoods.
Regarding your FIC experience, I would certainly agree. What other profession is content to allow its least experienced members to instruct others? In the RAF, instructors are selected and only the very talented are 'creamed off' at an early stage of their career to become QFIs - the vast majority have several years of broad experience behind them before they start their CFS training. That training includes much of what you recommend with regard to the 'teaching and learning' process.
But how would a 'career' FI be attracted by the salary levels paid by flying schools? If schools employed FIs on a 1:1 ratio to aeroplanes, a training organisation with 6 aircraft employing 6 FIs at even £30K per annum would need to find £180K from somewhere. Let's say that each ac flies 600 hours per year, then that would mean an extra £50 per hour just to pay FI salaries alone - assuming that everyone shares the cost of training. In an era where we face increasing competition from overseas training providers, the idea of paying an extra £2000 - £2500 for a PPL course would be unlikely to succeed. But 3600 hr per year means a fuel bill (PA28) of around £98000. Of which over half goes to swell George's sporren.... The one single thing which would bring down UK training costs substantially would be a cut in fuel tax - perhaps RFs and FTOs could then afford to pay their 'professional' FIs rather better!
Perhaps the only way of achieving a sound standard of instruction is to make the selection and training of civil FIs far more rigorous than it is today. For it is seen by many as merely a way of building hours before they join the airlines - a fundamentally unsound concept. The airlines have a big part to paly as well - they must take a much bigger role in selecting and training their new pilots; the current, highly flawed system is, of course, very cheap for them as they can rely on increasing numbers of ex-FI 'hours builders' beating a path to their door - and who are then selected largely by psychobabblers. But better the ex-FI with a little experience than someone whose entire aviation experience consists of hours achieved by flying up and down the East coast of Florida in the cheapest C150 they can find!
I certainly share your opinions - but I just can't see a simple solution whilst the airlines show seemingly no intention of running their own training programmes and the cost of flying remains as high as it is in the UK! Perhaps aptitude selection should form part of the CPL/ATPL course and only those with sufficient skill sets rather than just money and patience should be permitted to start CPL training? Then a 'standalone' FI licence such as you propose would be appropriate for those who also have the skill sets needed for flying instruction - and who would also be selected for training only after having passed aptitude testing and assessment?
Incidentally - did you see 'Flying School' on TV yesterday? Some very interesting examples of 'instructional technique'.......
Regarding your FIC experience, I would certainly agree. What other profession is content to allow its least experienced members to instruct others? In the RAF, instructors are selected and only the very talented are 'creamed off' at an early stage of their career to become QFIs - the vast majority have several years of broad experience behind them before they start their CFS training. That training includes much of what you recommend with regard to the 'teaching and learning' process.
But how would a 'career' FI be attracted by the salary levels paid by flying schools? If schools employed FIs on a 1:1 ratio to aeroplanes, a training organisation with 6 aircraft employing 6 FIs at even £30K per annum would need to find £180K from somewhere. Let's say that each ac flies 600 hours per year, then that would mean an extra £50 per hour just to pay FI salaries alone - assuming that everyone shares the cost of training. In an era where we face increasing competition from overseas training providers, the idea of paying an extra £2000 - £2500 for a PPL course would be unlikely to succeed. But 3600 hr per year means a fuel bill (PA28) of around £98000. Of which over half goes to swell George's sporren.... The one single thing which would bring down UK training costs substantially would be a cut in fuel tax - perhaps RFs and FTOs could then afford to pay their 'professional' FIs rather better!
Perhaps the only way of achieving a sound standard of instruction is to make the selection and training of civil FIs far more rigorous than it is today. For it is seen by many as merely a way of building hours before they join the airlines - a fundamentally unsound concept. The airlines have a big part to paly as well - they must take a much bigger role in selecting and training their new pilots; the current, highly flawed system is, of course, very cheap for them as they can rely on increasing numbers of ex-FI 'hours builders' beating a path to their door - and who are then selected largely by psychobabblers. But better the ex-FI with a little experience than someone whose entire aviation experience consists of hours achieved by flying up and down the East coast of Florida in the cheapest C150 they can find!
I certainly share your opinions - but I just can't see a simple solution whilst the airlines show seemingly no intention of running their own training programmes and the cost of flying remains as high as it is in the UK! Perhaps aptitude selection should form part of the CPL/ATPL course and only those with sufficient skill sets rather than just money and patience should be permitted to start CPL training? Then a 'standalone' FI licence such as you propose would be appropriate for those who also have the skill sets needed for flying instruction - and who would also be selected for training only after having passed aptitude testing and assessment?
Incidentally - did you see 'Flying School' on TV yesterday? Some very interesting examples of 'instructional technique'.......
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only concern about having a seperate NPPL and JAR PPL instructor rating is as stated in my previous post.
I would be totally happy to see a change which permitted renumerated instruction given by the holder of a PPL, as used to be the case prior to the introduction of the BCPL. Indeed a number of the instructors who taught me during my PPL training in 1987/8 were PPLs and three of them still instruct and examine with a restricted BCPL. The fact that they have never passed the ground examinations for a BCPL/CPL/ATPL has no effect whatever on their instructional ability.
I have instructed full time for over eleven years and hold a CPL/IR and I fail to see how that makes me any better or worse an instructor than those of my colleagues who hold a restricted BCPL. For those who dont know the restricted BCPL was issued without formality to those who used to conduct renumerated instruction on a PPL.
I would be totally happy to see a change which permitted renumerated instruction given by the holder of a PPL, as used to be the case prior to the introduction of the BCPL. Indeed a number of the instructors who taught me during my PPL training in 1987/8 were PPLs and three of them still instruct and examine with a restricted BCPL. The fact that they have never passed the ground examinations for a BCPL/CPL/ATPL has no effect whatever on their instructional ability.
I have instructed full time for over eleven years and hold a CPL/IR and I fail to see how that makes me any better or worse an instructor than those of my colleagues who hold a restricted BCPL. For those who dont know the restricted BCPL was issued without formality to those who used to conduct renumerated instruction on a PPL.
Just off the top of my head, the JAR principle is that instructors should have a knowledge/qualification equal to or greater than the standard for which they are instructing.
Why can we not have a Restricted CPL for FIs, limited to instruction only? I guess it would have to be JAR, but I suspect that vested interests in other JAA states wouldn't want it.
Yes, we should have stricter entry criteria and screening. And yes, the FI course might need to be expanded a little, with a formal written exam appropriate to the required skills.
This will increase the expense of the FI qualification itself, but be offset by the reduction in expenses compared to gaining a full CPL.
And finally, FI (A)s should be better paid. As an FI (A) and (H) I am constantly amazed at the differential between (A) and (H) pay per flying hour. If the market will stand it for rotary, which is already v.expensive before you add the FI's whack, why not for fixed wing too?
But if all the FTOs increased their training rates together somebody would complain of cartels etc.
You just can't win!
Why can we not have a Restricted CPL for FIs, limited to instruction only? I guess it would have to be JAR, but I suspect that vested interests in other JAA states wouldn't want it.
Yes, we should have stricter entry criteria and screening. And yes, the FI course might need to be expanded a little, with a formal written exam appropriate to the required skills.
This will increase the expense of the FI qualification itself, but be offset by the reduction in expenses compared to gaining a full CPL.
And finally, FI (A)s should be better paid. As an FI (A) and (H) I am constantly amazed at the differential between (A) and (H) pay per flying hour. If the market will stand it for rotary, which is already v.expensive before you add the FI's whack, why not for fixed wing too?
But if all the FTOs increased their training rates together somebody would complain of cartels etc.
You just can't win!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally. Part of the problem is that while the principles of teaching, learning and presentational techniques are included in the instructor course, very little time is spent on these important areas.
I disagree that the airlines are at fault. They simply pick what they consider to be the best of what is available. In the current UK system more hours = more chance of a RH seat job with an airline. If there was no easy method of hour building via instruction, the airlines would still take the best of the available pilots but these pilots will have less hours. No problem.
In dealing with the PPL (JAA or NPPL) one must at all times remember that it is a recreational licence.
In order to support the recreational aspect of the PPL, the JAA place few restrictions on organisations providing training. There is no need for them to be approved. All they have to do is send in a form to the CAA and get a free certificate in return.
Pre-JAR, many flying clubs could train their own instructors. Now unless they are an FTO, thay can not. Unlike many flying clubs, FTOs have an objective of making as much money as possible. Nothing wrong there since that's why they are in business. Consequently, the costs of courses are high and will remain so as long as there is sufficient demand.
If the CAA assisted flying clubs (RTFs) in obtaining limited FTO status for the purpose of training instructors, the cost of training and maintaining future club instructors could be reduced.
People in aviation for recreation could then quite easily obtain instructor qualifications on their PPLs and put back in something in return for what they got out.
There is nothing to prevent a flying club providing sponsorship for a suitable candidate to undergo an instructor course in house or at another FTO.
Should a club sponsor a member through a FI course, they could bond that instructor for a certain period if required. However, they are guaranteed to get at least 100 hours because until the restrictions are lifted the instructor is not attractive to any FTOs.
As with every voluntary recreational activity, not everyone will be willing (or able) to put something back in but in many cases, people who have not paid for their flight instruction will be more willing to provide the same service to newer members of their club.
Recreational instructors who don't get paid are getting free flying which is a nice saving when log book experience is cross checked against bank balance.
Could it be that a culture change is required with more true flying clubs at PPL level and fewer flying schools making money from PPLs.
Regards,
DFC
I disagree that the airlines are at fault. They simply pick what they consider to be the best of what is available. In the current UK system more hours = more chance of a RH seat job with an airline. If there was no easy method of hour building via instruction, the airlines would still take the best of the available pilots but these pilots will have less hours. No problem.
In dealing with the PPL (JAA or NPPL) one must at all times remember that it is a recreational licence.
In order to support the recreational aspect of the PPL, the JAA place few restrictions on organisations providing training. There is no need for them to be approved. All they have to do is send in a form to the CAA and get a free certificate in return.
Pre-JAR, many flying clubs could train their own instructors. Now unless they are an FTO, thay can not. Unlike many flying clubs, FTOs have an objective of making as much money as possible. Nothing wrong there since that's why they are in business. Consequently, the costs of courses are high and will remain so as long as there is sufficient demand.
If the CAA assisted flying clubs (RTFs) in obtaining limited FTO status for the purpose of training instructors, the cost of training and maintaining future club instructors could be reduced.
People in aviation for recreation could then quite easily obtain instructor qualifications on their PPLs and put back in something in return for what they got out.
There is nothing to prevent a flying club providing sponsorship for a suitable candidate to undergo an instructor course in house or at another FTO.
Should a club sponsor a member through a FI course, they could bond that instructor for a certain period if required. However, they are guaranteed to get at least 100 hours because until the restrictions are lifted the instructor is not attractive to any FTOs.
As with every voluntary recreational activity, not everyone will be willing (or able) to put something back in but in many cases, people who have not paid for their flight instruction will be more willing to provide the same service to newer members of their club.
Recreational instructors who don't get paid are getting free flying which is a nice saving when log book experience is cross checked against bank balance.
Could it be that a culture change is required with more true flying clubs at PPL level and fewer flying schools making money from PPLs.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Glos
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thread. Two points here.
1. At small clubs even having a restricted FI can be a major problem in administration. I personally like to have an FI(R) on the books as I enjoy the freshness they bring, BUT...my workload increases dramatically: having to come in on days off, check flights, taking them up in poor wx, etc. On top of that is the difficulty of explaining the FI(R) system to students, taking them for their first solos, etc. As I said, at a small club making that all work can be a nightmare. Imagine how difficult things would be if you had instructors that could only teach NPPLs. The situation would be ludicrous: a plane available, a PPL student available, good wx but only an NPPL instructor available, so no lesson. Even if the regs changed, I can't see myself employing, in effect, a seriously restricted NPPL instructor. Why wouldn't I continue with PPL instructors so that I had the flexibility to allocate them to any student? What's more, I think a split in the NPPL/PPL instructor system would worsen instructor salaries as a whole. Less instructor flexibility means more instructors would be needed to cover the same student base. An increase in instructor numbers with no increase in club revenue can only mean reduced pay for instructors.
So logistically and financially I think two instructor types would be a bad idea.
2. I totally agree that the ATPL written exams are entirely unsuited to PPL instruction. And given that the exams are called 'commercial' I don't recall a single subject being devoted to the pilot's role in making the organisation 'commercial'. Even my IR instructor tried to persuade me that piston engines were more efficient the lower you were! Subjects that are key to the commercial operation of GA just weren't covered: selecting the most appropriate heights to benefit from/avoid the winds, leaning off with no fuel flow or EGT gauge, dead reckoning in IMC to go direct route instead of beacon bashing; the list is endless. Still at least I remember that those stupid haboobs come out in the Summer.
Exactly the same inappropriateness applies to student learning methods. Basic psychology or education theory should be part of the ATPLs. Surely the ability to adapt instructional style, to recognise resistance to instruction, to learn to confront constructively, to understand different learning styles, etc, etc, etc should be part of our theoretical training. I know these can be covered in the FIC course but not in the same systematic fashion as ground exams. I thought the commercial written exams were supposed to equip pilots with the skills for all aspects of commercial flying, and yet they are so clearly designed for airline work and that alone. If the CAA treated flight instruction as an equal with airline flying and set the syllabus accordingly then these discussions about different instructor types wouldn't be needed - you'd need a pro to teach and that would be the end of it. That pro wouldn't need an IR or an MCC, so they could be a decent PPL, but they'd know about teaching theory. And if you think that this is only useful for PPL instructors, what about all those frozen ATPL's who eventually become TRI's. Commerciality and instructional behaviours should be an integral part of a pilot's training.
Therefore, I think there should be no change in the current system for instructors, but I would like to see the content of the theoretical exams changed.
Sorry for the rant, folks, a bad day I guess. Anyway, a very interesting thread.
1. At small clubs even having a restricted FI can be a major problem in administration. I personally like to have an FI(R) on the books as I enjoy the freshness they bring, BUT...my workload increases dramatically: having to come in on days off, check flights, taking them up in poor wx, etc. On top of that is the difficulty of explaining the FI(R) system to students, taking them for their first solos, etc. As I said, at a small club making that all work can be a nightmare. Imagine how difficult things would be if you had instructors that could only teach NPPLs. The situation would be ludicrous: a plane available, a PPL student available, good wx but only an NPPL instructor available, so no lesson. Even if the regs changed, I can't see myself employing, in effect, a seriously restricted NPPL instructor. Why wouldn't I continue with PPL instructors so that I had the flexibility to allocate them to any student? What's more, I think a split in the NPPL/PPL instructor system would worsen instructor salaries as a whole. Less instructor flexibility means more instructors would be needed to cover the same student base. An increase in instructor numbers with no increase in club revenue can only mean reduced pay for instructors.
So logistically and financially I think two instructor types would be a bad idea.
2. I totally agree that the ATPL written exams are entirely unsuited to PPL instruction. And given that the exams are called 'commercial' I don't recall a single subject being devoted to the pilot's role in making the organisation 'commercial'. Even my IR instructor tried to persuade me that piston engines were more efficient the lower you were! Subjects that are key to the commercial operation of GA just weren't covered: selecting the most appropriate heights to benefit from/avoid the winds, leaning off with no fuel flow or EGT gauge, dead reckoning in IMC to go direct route instead of beacon bashing; the list is endless. Still at least I remember that those stupid haboobs come out in the Summer.
Exactly the same inappropriateness applies to student learning methods. Basic psychology or education theory should be part of the ATPLs. Surely the ability to adapt instructional style, to recognise resistance to instruction, to learn to confront constructively, to understand different learning styles, etc, etc, etc should be part of our theoretical training. I know these can be covered in the FIC course but not in the same systematic fashion as ground exams. I thought the commercial written exams were supposed to equip pilots with the skills for all aspects of commercial flying, and yet they are so clearly designed for airline work and that alone. If the CAA treated flight instruction as an equal with airline flying and set the syllabus accordingly then these discussions about different instructor types wouldn't be needed - you'd need a pro to teach and that would be the end of it. That pro wouldn't need an IR or an MCC, so they could be a decent PPL, but they'd know about teaching theory. And if you think that this is only useful for PPL instructors, what about all those frozen ATPL's who eventually become TRI's. Commerciality and instructional behaviours should be an integral part of a pilot's training.
Therefore, I think there should be no change in the current system for instructors, but I would like to see the content of the theoretical exams changed.
Sorry for the rant, folks, a bad day I guess. Anyway, a very interesting thread.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Midlands UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this not a matter of building experience?
Now that we have NPPL - Could all new trainee's not start with the NPPL with an NPPL Instructor to qualification, and then train up to JAR standard if and when required with a JAR Instructor? This would create a definate need for both sets of career instructors, and a defined route to licences and qualifications.
NPPL(SEP) - build experience and have fun - JAR upgrade - twin, IMC, foreign travel etc.
Of course, the only stumbling block currently, is the lack of credits toward the JAR PPL if the NPPL instruction has been with an NPPL FI.
Hour builders - history has shown that the Airlines will take the best they can get at any particular time, be it a 250 or 2500 hr pilot. If the Frozen ATPL's wish to instruct to build hours, then perhaps they could work for the Approved Integrated schools from where the Airlines could hire.
Let's have a course for NPPL FI's that focuses on flying skills, teaching, and having fun within recreational aviation.
Now that we have NPPL - Could all new trainee's not start with the NPPL with an NPPL Instructor to qualification, and then train up to JAR standard if and when required with a JAR Instructor? This would create a definate need for both sets of career instructors, and a defined route to licences and qualifications.
NPPL(SEP) - build experience and have fun - JAR upgrade - twin, IMC, foreign travel etc.
Of course, the only stumbling block currently, is the lack of credits toward the JAR PPL if the NPPL instruction has been with an NPPL FI.
Hour builders - history has shown that the Airlines will take the best they can get at any particular time, be it a 250 or 2500 hr pilot. If the Frozen ATPL's wish to instruct to build hours, then perhaps they could work for the Approved Integrated schools from where the Airlines could hire.
Let's have a course for NPPL FI's that focuses on flying skills, teaching, and having fun within recreational aviation.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: U.K
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I've been reading this thread with interest and would like to make a few points.
I dont think that having separate instructor qualifications for NPPL and PPL will work at all. It will be divisive and completely fail to achieve the desired result.
Also, instructing generally should not be separated from those wishing to progress to the airlines... I do wish to fly for airlines, but that doesnt mean I dont instruct properly, nor do i "use" students just to build my hours. Instructing is a stepping stone in my career, but I hope to continue it when I get to the airlines. The vast majority of my friends and colleagues in the industry are "airline hours builders" and I'd say that for the most part we are good instructors, there are always bad egss in every basket and its frustrating to be tarnished with the same brush purely because my career aims are different to flying C150's around for the next 20 years.
If you want someone to do a good job, you have to motivate them... low pay, crap working conditions do very little to help.
I enjoy instructing, I'd consider doing it as a career if I thought I could make than £25,000+ a year doing it and not the current £6,000 if I'm lucky. If you want people to become career instructors.. you have to pay them enough money to live on.That would add £40 an hour to the current rates tho.... however I do think instructors should be paid more than the current £12 or so per flying hour. However.. if heli instructors make enough money.. why cant FI(A)'s??.
I do also accept that while the airlines want 1000hrs.. and there is no possible way in the UK to go from 200 to 1000 hours without instructing (sicne we basically have no GA industry other than air taxi work.. which is harder to break into than the airlines) then there will always be a large number of people instructing for the hours.. this in itself drives down FI(A) salaries... for every person that will work for £15.. theres one that will do it for £10.. one that will do it for £5.. and so on.
There needs to be a much improved structure for getting people from 0 to an airline... at the moment FTO's pump out 500 new CPL's a year.. there simply arent jobs available,, and with the market being flooded by experienced pilots from all over the place its tough hetting that first break.. always has been.. always will.. until there is a better structure in place.
Hour's building instructors.. career instructors... who cares.. so long as the instructor is good at it, and has sufficent degree of motivation to do the job well. There are good and bad instructors out there regardless of background or long term career aim, the same way there are good and bad students. I've flown with some students that have become good friends.. and some that are so competitive/confrontational that they are close to being impossible to teach. Most cases where a student says their instructor is crap is purely a case of personality clash.. simple solution is to change your instructor!
The current FIC course I think provides well for teaching someone to teach.... you want pilots with a good level of knowledge and experience (and 200 hours with a CPL and FIC course is sufficent to teach someone to a decent PPL standard) to pass on their knowledge and skills to someone else. The difference in ability and experience between CPL/IR/FI and 250hours to PPL with 55 hours is enormous.
This all comes down to money and self interest... you want to fly as cheaply as possible while getting the best instruction possible....unpaid instructors.. non-profit making flying clubs and so on. What you're really asking is for other people to subsidise your flying with their enthusiasm! there is actually a flying school in the UK that offers dual instruction for £85 an hour .... the school is non profit making and run by aviation enthusiasts to try and get people into flying......
The NPPL itself in my opinion is a slightly false economy.. I cant see many people being safe pilots at 32 hours... very few people pass the PPL within the miniumum 45 hours as it is.. the NPPL is only skimping on the important parts of the course.. less stall training, less Nav training and so on. What is taught is exactly the same as in the PPL... only slightly less of it......
Having NPPL instructors with a "lesser" instructional qualification.. teaching pilots to a "lesser" standard... I'm not comfortable with that. Flight safety will not be improved.
Sorry if I've repeated my self or waffled a bit!!
LP
I've been reading this thread with interest and would like to make a few points.
I dont think that having separate instructor qualifications for NPPL and PPL will work at all. It will be divisive and completely fail to achieve the desired result.
Also, instructing generally should not be separated from those wishing to progress to the airlines... I do wish to fly for airlines, but that doesnt mean I dont instruct properly, nor do i "use" students just to build my hours. Instructing is a stepping stone in my career, but I hope to continue it when I get to the airlines. The vast majority of my friends and colleagues in the industry are "airline hours builders" and I'd say that for the most part we are good instructors, there are always bad egss in every basket and its frustrating to be tarnished with the same brush purely because my career aims are different to flying C150's around for the next 20 years.
If you want someone to do a good job, you have to motivate them... low pay, crap working conditions do very little to help.
I enjoy instructing, I'd consider doing it as a career if I thought I could make than £25,000+ a year doing it and not the current £6,000 if I'm lucky. If you want people to become career instructors.. you have to pay them enough money to live on.That would add £40 an hour to the current rates tho.... however I do think instructors should be paid more than the current £12 or so per flying hour. However.. if heli instructors make enough money.. why cant FI(A)'s??.
I do also accept that while the airlines want 1000hrs.. and there is no possible way in the UK to go from 200 to 1000 hours without instructing (sicne we basically have no GA industry other than air taxi work.. which is harder to break into than the airlines) then there will always be a large number of people instructing for the hours.. this in itself drives down FI(A) salaries... for every person that will work for £15.. theres one that will do it for £10.. one that will do it for £5.. and so on.
There needs to be a much improved structure for getting people from 0 to an airline... at the moment FTO's pump out 500 new CPL's a year.. there simply arent jobs available,, and with the market being flooded by experienced pilots from all over the place its tough hetting that first break.. always has been.. always will.. until there is a better structure in place.
Hour's building instructors.. career instructors... who cares.. so long as the instructor is good at it, and has sufficent degree of motivation to do the job well. There are good and bad instructors out there regardless of background or long term career aim, the same way there are good and bad students. I've flown with some students that have become good friends.. and some that are so competitive/confrontational that they are close to being impossible to teach. Most cases where a student says their instructor is crap is purely a case of personality clash.. simple solution is to change your instructor!
The current FIC course I think provides well for teaching someone to teach.... you want pilots with a good level of knowledge and experience (and 200 hours with a CPL and FIC course is sufficent to teach someone to a decent PPL standard) to pass on their knowledge and skills to someone else. The difference in ability and experience between CPL/IR/FI and 250hours to PPL with 55 hours is enormous.
This all comes down to money and self interest... you want to fly as cheaply as possible while getting the best instruction possible....unpaid instructors.. non-profit making flying clubs and so on. What you're really asking is for other people to subsidise your flying with their enthusiasm! there is actually a flying school in the UK that offers dual instruction for £85 an hour .... the school is non profit making and run by aviation enthusiasts to try and get people into flying......
The NPPL itself in my opinion is a slightly false economy.. I cant see many people being safe pilots at 32 hours... very few people pass the PPL within the miniumum 45 hours as it is.. the NPPL is only skimping on the important parts of the course.. less stall training, less Nav training and so on. What is taught is exactly the same as in the PPL... only slightly less of it......
Having NPPL instructors with a "lesser" instructional qualification.. teaching pilots to a "lesser" standard... I'm not comfortable with that. Flight safety will not be improved.
Sorry if I've repeated my self or waffled a bit!!
LP
Thread Starter
Thanks for your intersting and well thought out post. I've come around to thinking that FTOs are generating CPLs and FI(R)s at a rate which the market simply can't absorb at present. That's mainly due to the despicable lack of invesment in ab-initio training by the airlines........
If this was an honest industry, airlines would select future pilots after extensive aptitude and academic testing. They would then take them from PA28 to A320 in a properly structured training programme. But they don't - they rely on mainly self-funded pilots who have slaved, scraped and scrounged their way to the airline. Hardly an honest professional training methodology....
Regarding the NPPL, quite honestly I've flown quite a few JAR-FCL PPL Skill Tests on pilots with the minimum hours and, if they were well trained, then they passed. No problems. The NPPL is about the same as the UK PPL which I did in 1968 - I don't foresee any significant problems, but Examiners are agreed that they won't lower their standards in the NPPL NST or GST........
If this was an honest industry, airlines would select future pilots after extensive aptitude and academic testing. They would then take them from PA28 to A320 in a properly structured training programme. But they don't - they rely on mainly self-funded pilots who have slaved, scraped and scrounged their way to the airline. Hardly an honest professional training methodology....
Regarding the NPPL, quite honestly I've flown quite a few JAR-FCL PPL Skill Tests on pilots with the minimum hours and, if they were well trained, then they passed. No problems. The NPPL is about the same as the UK PPL which I did in 1968 - I don't foresee any significant problems, but Examiners are agreed that they won't lower their standards in the NPPL NST or GST........