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.

The only recession coming is the one we talk ourselves into......

BlacJake, sorry but you are wide of the mark here. There is no magical skills that doing a CPL gives you. Handling is about handling and the only difference between a PPL skills test and a CPL skills test is a bit tighter tolerances nothing more. Any CPL who thinks that because they hold a CPL it makes them a better pilot is an arrogant ass.

Any pilot who the dedication, skill and knowledge can teach regardless of being a PPL or CPL. There are many of each kind who will never be able to teach as long as their respective bums point downwards. Bringing back the opportunity for PPLs to teach again just widens the catchment for getting quality people into teaching and will hopefully introduce some continuity back into the GA scene.

The people who moan about the changes are generally those who are seeing the free meal ticket to hours going out the window.

We have to take a wider look at the state that the GA scene is in due to lack of continuity with the ours builders jumping at the firs airline job and leaving a vacuum that is bringing GA down. PPL instructors will fill the vacuum and bring back the old sense of club that existed in the past with peer teaching etc.

I don't feel threatened by it at all and welcome it with open arms as I am wise enough to know that natural selection will prevail.

Bose, If you care to re-read my post you might notice that nowhere do I imply that a CPL holder is a more skilled pilot than a PPL holder. I simply stated that the instructor course should be about learning to teach, not brush up on flying skills. If I am wrong, perhaps an FIC instructor or FIE can post here to put me right.
As you are obviously so clued up about the difference between the CPL and PPL skill test, I assume therefore you are both a PPL and CPL examiner. True or no?
Likewise regarding theoretical knowledge, my post clearly states, "if all experienced PPLs who aspire to instruct really knew their stuff, CPL level of knowledge wouldn't be required." Perhaps you can explain, using a whiteboard and four colours, why that is wide of the mark?

Blackjake. Toys, back into pram mate.

The instructor course is not just about learning to teach, it is about ensuring that all of the flying skills are up to scratch. For some that means refreshing some of the basics that don't get practiced that often.

So with your toys back in the pram, perhaps you want to explain clearly why you think that a CPL holder is going to be better than a PPL holder at Instruction? If every candidate knew their stuff then no training at all would be required would it? A benchmark is set and that benchmark is meant to ensure that every candidate meets a minimum demonstrated standard. In this case JAA have dictated CPL level knowledge. I don't read anywhere CPL level handling skills.......

Whats your problem with my comments, a CPL holder who feels threatened that a 'mere' PPL might be up to the job.....

Still waiting for a reply from someone who knows what they're talking about, rather than someone who thinks they do.

OK.

For a living I instruct ab-initio train drivers and I fly for fun. There are many drivers in my company with equivalent or better knowledge than I have but not that many that can instruct to the same standard.

Flying/driving needs the underpinning of a thorough knowledge and understanding of your subject. This is required for the safe and efficient operation of your job. However, instructing needs an empathy towards and an appreciation of your student/trainees needs and the ability to transfer that knowledge to a nervous student/trainee. Having seen both sides of this equation I can say that a 10000 hr retired long haul captain can be a worse instructor than a 300 hr wannabe if he lacks the ability to go back to very basics. It can be very hard to do this, to concentrate on the basics.

I know this will be difficult for very experienced people to take but hours spent behind the mast does not equate to good instructional skills.

Perhaps the airline industry has the same system as us. Newly qualified drivers need to spend 450 hours driving with one of the above 10000 hr drivers who acts as a supervisor (no instructing, just mentoring) before he goes solo.

SOTV, has pretty much hit it on the head. Teaching is about empathy and an ability to communicate as well as a passion for the subject. It is nothing to do with the qualifications that the candidate holds.

By removing the requirement to hold a CPL we open the field up to more candidates. There are many people holders who have the empathy and experience to teach but can't get a CPL for medical reasons for example. This does not stop them from becoming a good Instructor.

The whole point is that the FI course is to weed out/improve the candidates and teach them to teach. When I did my own Instructor course there were others on their who had rusty skills, mostly the airline jocks who were not used to PFL's and stalls in small aircraft who were brushed up.

I would expect the kids doing an FI straight from training to have acceptable skills most of the time, although again having seen a few of them you wonder.

But the point that I keep trying to make is that re-opening the opportunities for PPL to teach again will allow us to draw more consistency back into teaching.

PPl Instructors
 

PPL Instructors
 

I've been following this thread with some interest and noted the various views expressed.I think at long last with the most recent posts by SOTV,bose-x and wicker man we are starting to get to the nub of the matter.Surely the key to the whole of this debate is a person's ability to teach allied to sufficient knowledge and experience to ensure that any student is safe in the basic skills and has the theoretical and practical knowledge to understand the wider environment in which they will eventually exercise the privileges of their licence.Whilst I am fully of the view that the need for a CPL as a formal qualification is way over the top in terms of content we maybe ought to be looking at a more rigorous examination of the PPL level theoretical knowledge requirements as part of the FI course.

SF

Good point... and here perhaps is where we need to start looking for our solutions. The AOPA Ground Instructor Cert (for example) is a rigorous syllabus and an ideal way for prospective PPL Instructors to ease their way into the system, improve standards - and generate new income streams for the Club/School....

I am also of the opinion that anyone doing a job has the right to be paid - why shouldn`t a suitably qualifed PPL instructor be paid to instruct? Payment also enhances status and accountability.

It would be quite simple to invent a "Commercial Classification" on completion of an FIC to satisfy this right to earn.

(I`m an interested observer as I`m considering returning to instructing (did circa 3500 hrs of it until about 15 yrs ago) but well out of the system now... but wont consider it if I can`t be paid to at the very least recoup renewal costs... or if I have to maintain a "Professional" licence.

Excellent posts here I think. The fact is that few people are any good at teaching a subject no matter what the knowledge base or enthusiasm. Many superb pilots are useless instructors. It may well be that the below average bloke who has struggled to cope is better than an 'ace' when it comes to getting his subject across. At least he understands the problem.

If teaching were simply a matter of learning a subject and a bit of teaching technique our schools would not be full of hopeless individuals employed as 'teachers'. It is a rare skill where it is found and the demand for instructors will always exceed the pool of people reallly good at it. Hence the logic of the biggest pool possible.

When I did my PPl I had a choice of instructors.
I chose one who had 4000+ hours flying experience and not a new CPL hours builder with 200+ hours.

I would do the same. I would not have felt comfortable with a low hours instructor.

Having just ploughed my way through the latest EASA NPA 2008-17b when it come to the suggested rules on flying instructors (subpart J) my reading of the proposal is as follows:
FCL.905/910/915 930/935/940 Specific requirements for the light aircraft flight instructor would indicate that indeed you can instruct with just a PPL (200 hours and then do course) HOWEVER it only enables you to teach for the LPL leisure pilot licence (old nppl ?)

FCL905FI/910FI/915FI/935FI/940FI would seem to indicate if you wish to teach PPL etc then you need a CPL still.

However FCL205A (page 19/647) Privileges of a PPL (A) states that the holder of a PPL(a) may receive renumeration for providing flight instruction for the provision of a LPL(a) OR PPL(a)

yet the requirements to attend a FI Course FCL915FI (page51/647) state you need a CPL .....so how do you get an instructors rating just with a PPL ??

I know it is not easy reading but if anyone else has read this (or has the inclination to !) I would be interested in how they interpret the proposal.

mudcity. Your interpretation is almost right. The requirements for a CPL for the FI course are actually CPL knowledge not to hold a CPL. You can currently do an FI course without holding a CPL that is not changing.

Cheers bose x...I have just reread FCL915FI and the pre-requisities for the FI course part (C) actually state hold at least a CPL(a) OR completed at least 200 hours of flight time,of which 150 PIC

When I first read it did not see the OR ! so the way I read it is YES you can do FI course with just a PPL providing you have the hours.

Little history reminder: For many, many years, PPL's with 150 hours in command could take FI courses and thus instruct. They were also allowed a salary to do so. I was one of them, but then in those days I had no intention of gaining a CPL, let alone an ATPL, I just wanted to instruct at weekends at the local club. I think I did a good job: my FIC course not only included the passing on of handling skills but also honed my theoretical knowledge beyond that of the PPL syllabus.
Often I noted at my club newly qualified instructors joining, demanding tons and tons of flying and when their logbooks contained the magic 700 hours, off they would go to get their CPL's without having to incurr the cost of an "approved course". We never saw them again, just had to sort out the instructional mess that they had left behind. Of course, because of this, the pay that part time FI's could get was peanuts (it still is) and there was concern that the poor wage structure discriminated against the "career instructor" discouraged high quality instruction and only favoured the hours builder.
Thus the requirement to hold a BCPL was introduced to try and cut down the number of hours builders and encourage the industry to pay a worthwhile wage to instructors. This did not solve the problem, thus the requirement to hold a full CPL was introduced for the same reason. Unfortunately, as there was such a shortage of flying jobs, the guy with a (say) 300 hour CPL was much less likely to get the coveted RHS job than the guy with (say) 1500 hours. Thus the brand new CPL goes off and gets an instructor rating, once again to build hours! To this day therefore the laws of supply and demand have kept instructor's remuneration low. As the same situation does not exist in the helocopter industry, helicopter PPL QFI's get a very much better living, but then of course, helicopters cost much more to operate.
So now, everything is turning full circle. The powers that be have given up trying to get fixed wing instructors a decent standard of living and as PPL instructors did and can do the job perfectly adequately are seriously considering removing the CPL requirement to the holding of an instructor's rating.

P.P.

In my view, enthusiastic PPLs who have actually experienced the range of PPL type activities, such as going to fly-ins, ralllies, visiting new airfields, crossing the channel, flying different types of aeroplanes, going on holiday to fly in other countries, taking part in the Dawn to Dusk or Precision flying competitions, would make far more suitable PPL instructors than the youngsters who graduate from Integrated courses or focussed CPLs. The latter have never done any REAL flying, never been anywhere outside the narrow scope of their syllabus and do not know the joy of flying somewhere just for the sake of it on a sunny day to sit and drink coffee and watch the other types of aviation going on. Examples - flying to Headcorn and watching the Tiger Club go through their routines, the parachutes dropping and all the other colourful things going on; Wycombe Air Park when the gliders are busy alongside fixed wing and rotary all getting on well together.

The average 200 hour CPL does not seem to me to have the breadth and depth of experience I would like to see in the FI - I have trained over 140 instructors now and the ones with more hours in their log books and more decades since their birth are generally much more likely to be good and successful instructors. The youngsters who are only looking to get hours on the way to an airline and are more interested in looking trendy than learning are a waste of time.

So I welcome the return to PPLs being paid to instruct. I have trained a few PPL instructors already over the years and although their handling skills may not be as honed as those who have just passed a CPL Skill test, their life skills usually more than make up for it.

Gosh, there seem to an awful lot of personal axes being ground on this thread. I personally find it quite surreal when the 'I know better because I'm high-houred/low-houred/PPL/ATPL' brigade get into their stride. My own observation, from 30 years of instruction, is that a good instructor is a bit like a gentleman (or lady). Difficult to define, but you know one when you see one.

Flying instruction will always be poorly remunerated, because otherwise flying training will price itself out of the market - I left home at 0730 yesterday, got back at 2000, flew seven lessons, managed a 10 minute break to wolf down a sandwich and took home £83, of which £20 went on petrol. It follows that you need people prepared to work for peanuts to populate the instructor force. This includes weekenders and hours builders. Not right or fair, but that's the way of the world.

Mmm. Looks like a lovely evening in prospect to fly my microlight.:O

Is instructing on a PPL still subject to the same medical requirements of a CPL i.e class 1?

Nope Class 2

So can one assume that if this goes through they'll also be relaxing the medical requirements on current instructors with class 1 medicals? I bloody hope so!:ugh: