A Return to the Olden Days
 

I have heard a rumour that the CAA is considering (or EASA is) allowing ppl's to teach without the requirement for the ATPL's

In essence I believe it to be a return to the good old days of the BCPL, a route to ATPL that should never have been removed anyway.

Can anyone shed any light on this as it is something that I would like to do but cannot financially commit to the frozen ATPL route. Being able to instruct on a ppl (and get paid for it) would be an ideal opportunity for me. In addition, if this is the way things are going to go, how long until it happens and will the 900 hours a year limit apply?

Thanks

Thats very much old news. Theres been numerous threads on this subject already, try a search.

Theres nothing cast in stone yet, they are just proposals. Probably a few years away, if it ever happens.

The key is, I think, knowledge, rather than experience. To use school as an example, one would generally hope that the person teaching A-level physics has a degree in the subject and therefore sufficent depth of knowledge to answer the odd penetrating and/or difficult question beyond the syllabus. The old system, where the FI course was based entirely on the PPL syllabus was fine when a huge number of instructors came from military backgrounds with the concomitant embedded knowledge and would pass on pearls of wisdom to new AFIs. It's a different ethos in the schools these days, so I'm afraid I'd be looking for at least CPL knowledge in any new instructor if I were still a CFI.

The Old Days?
 

Wicker Man.

Award of any licence requires demonstration of skills and knowledge. I would agree that the skills side can be taught by anyone who has passed an Instructor Test subsequent to the FI course. Depth of knowledge is a different thing and it's important to be able to discuss aviation topics at a higher level than the PPL syllabus requires, should the situation arise. We are not talking about driving a car or a truck here - these are purely manual skills. Flying is a little more cerebral. I feel my school metaphor was more appropriate than those you quote.

I was recently asked by a student to explain coriolis effect. How many instructors who have not gone beyond the PPL syllabus would be able to do that?

coriolis Force
 

Hi Bristolscout.

The effects of the coriolis force is covered in the PPL meteorology exam, see AFE met book pages met 11-12-13.

The requirement is to hold CPL level knowledge not to hold a CPL. If someone wishes to be an Instructor then they should be able to explain Coriolis effect quite rightly. But as has been pointed out, so should a PPL.....

The ICAO requirement to teach is to hold at least the licence being taught for.

Just because someone chooses not to do a CPL does not make them any less a candidate to be an Instructor and most experienced PPL's make much better instructors than 300hrs hour builders.

The change is currently being pushed through the EASA system which is going to be great news for continuity for students and flying clubs and will hopefully help see standaards improve.

bose-x

You are missing the point here. You are right that experienced PPL's could potentially make better instructors than 300 hour CPL hours builders......the problem is the last I heard was that the proposal was for PPL's with 200 hours. What's more the 200 hour PPL is just as likely to be an hours builder as a 200 hour CPL. The difference is the base level of knowledge and quality of structured training each has been through.

This amounts to an inevitable drop in standards. After all it is the minimum standard required that will set the benchmark.

The only winners here will be the flying schools who will be able to justify lower wages. Instructors and students will lose out.

Sorry Pringle but I think you are wrong. I don't think for a start you are going to get many 200hr PPL's doing the Instructor course unlike the 200hr hours builders who just see it as a stepping stone to 'better' things. I think from the work that I have done on this that we are going to get the higher hour PPL's who want to put something back into aviation, the retired etc.

As far as knowledge is concerned again I think you are wrong, the requirement to hold CPL level knowledge is not being removed, just the requirement to hold a CPL. The FI and CRI courses weed out those who do not have the knowledge to back up what they are trying to do.

I have been around long enough to remember when Instruction was done by PPL FI's and believe me the standards were just as good if not better a lot of the time.

It's only around 10 years since instructing was done by PPL FIs, less for helicopters. Nothing remotely revolutionary or earth-shattering is being proposed, merely a return to how things were for years and years and years. And as bose-x said, standards were no different.

I'm an FI(H) who does happen to hold a CPL...because I had to. About 90% of the CPL theory was a complete and utter waste of time for a future instructor, and even if it wasn't, I've forgotten it anyway...use it or lose it. I'd have been far better off learning a bit more about how to teach, and learning theory covered about 1-2 lessons in the FI course.

At the end of the day the PPL still has to meet the FI standard which I have a good understanding of as I am qualified to teach for the instructor rating in Canada. My experience doing many PPL annual proficency check rides at my flying club is that pretty much all of the PPL's would require quite a bit of remedial instruction on the stick and rudder basics before I could actually start the FI course. I also found in general the higher time pilots who had held a PPL for several years had the weakest handling skills. Nevertheless I would much rather work with someone who has a genuine desire to teach instead of someone who is using the FI as necessary evil to endure on the way to the airline job. Also the life and people skills age brings, can be very effective in the context of teaching the range of personalities you get at the club level.

An apology for being misleading. I was referring to the coriolis effect relating to the paths of bodies in space, rather than the coriolis force specific to meteorology, which is a practical derivation.

Bose-X

I agree that experienced PPL's are the ones we are after. So why don't they set the hours requirement at a higher level... say 400 hours? I think I know why: Because the establishment realise that they won't get enough instructors with this level of experience to plug the shortage which exists at the moment.

Many experienced PPL's are not interested in instructing or they would have already be instructors. Lets face it the cost of the course only amounts to around 60 hours flying in a club aircraft. Many are reluctant to do the groundschool stating that many subjects are irrellevant. Maybe some are, but, if they had a burning desire to teach, they would do the exams. After all even if the subjects are more relevant to the airline world, surely an aeroplane-head would at least find them an interesting challenge?

Regretfully in my experience most instructors see the job as a stepping stone or the only way they can afford to fly. I know some do it for the love of it, but not enough to fill the vacancies. So the establishment see the only option is to drop the standards rather than improve the terms and conditions of those who would like to remain in the profession, but can't afford to.

Interesting what Big Pistons says about experienced PPL's having poorer handling skills on checkouts. I have experienced this too. I don't think you can generalise too much, but I have seen excellent handling and capacity to absorb information from youngsters with low hours and quite the opposite from many experienced PPL's. If an experienced PPL is not regularly carrying out GH exercises as part of their flying routene, it's not surprising that they struggle on a check out. A PPL who flies for business may have a lot to offer on the navigation side of the syllabus, but if they never practice PFL's they will be less competent in that area than someone who has just qualified. No I'm not arguing to let recently qualified PPL's instruct, but, this is why I prefer the structure the CPL provides.

Pringle1:

Not convinced about this. Somewhere between 10% and 20% of active glider pilots are instructors, unpaid at that. Can't believe that power pilots are so different, though it might take time to achieve the culture change.

Pringle. I am just trying to provide a balanced view. It does not effect me either way. I am an Instructor, I have over 3000hrs and I have no desire to work as an Instructor for a job or work for an airline.

My experience has been that the type of people who are interested in becoming instructors are people who have time and enthusiasm to put into it. They are the sort of people who will stick at it and not run off when the first airline job appears.

As far as handling skills are concerned it ay be true that some of them need refreshing on some of the basic stuff, but that is what the FI course is for. Trust me, I have met many of the low hours hour builders who could not handle an aircraft for toffee either. I think that having the view that someone who has had the 'structure' of the CPL somehow has more experience than a PPL with real flying time under their belt is a bit naive.

There is a serious question of course of the financial commitment of the FI course. At present the course is going to cost you around £7k(minimum hours etc). Its going to take minimum 5 - 6 weeks, possibly more. How many people are prepared to commit to that?

...so how did the PPLs that taught me and bose-x commit to it 25 years ago when flying was even more expensive than it is now?

My PPL cost me £30 per hour when I was earning about £4k pa. The same job I was doing then pays £30k+ now, say almost 8 times. The most expensive school in the country is relatively cheaper than the 'self-help' group with unpaid volunteers I learned with was then. I'm sure FI courses were relatively just as expensive and time-consuming then as now...

TheOddOne

As bose -x said my instructor was older than me (was 47 at time) and did it because he loved flying he had his CPL etc but ran his own company and instructed because he loved flying. Had to fly with a couple of hours builders for various reasons and they were not as good. (this was only 4 years ago). Finished up doing my skills exam with Freddy Stringer (RIP) who promptly said non of them now what there talking about however passed.

Im only pointing out the financial outlay concerned. We're away to hit a recession and fuel prices are at an all time high. Avgas is becoming very expensive, as are flying club rates. Not everybody has a spare 7 or 8 thousand quid to spend on a rating.

Im all for the 'experienced' PPL scenario however. I think its an excellent idea and i know of at least 2 people in my local syndicate who are interested. They both have 100's of hours and in my opinion would make excellent instructors. They are however put off by the price and the requirement to get the necessary time off work.

Surely the FI course (and CRI course) is about learning how to teach, not a refresher on some of the basic handling skills as Mr Bose suggests? If you don't have the basic handling skills yourself you shouldn't even be considered to start the course. A naieve view perhaps but it's got to be true.
Similarly, the ground school part of the course should be on how to deliver pre-flight briefings and teach any aspect of the theoretical knowledge requirement of the the PPL syllabus (just in case a student needs your help understanding something and asks that awkward question). The course looks to be pretty intensive, so remedial training in basic PPL theoretical knowledge shouldn't be part of instructor training. If all experienced pilots with PPLs who aspire to instruct really knew their stuff, CPL level of knowledge wouldn't be required. I assume however, that the people in the JAA and CAA doubt that the average PPL has ever attained and retained this depth of knowledge (honestly - can anyone here deny that it's possible to pass the PPL multiple choice theory exams by reading the confuser and without really understanding big chunks of it? ) Hence the requirement for CPL knowledge to become a PPL instructor. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for PPL instructors. But I'd hate to pay good money for instruction from someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.