EASA Part FCL
 

For those interested the latest NPA is available re EASA Part FCL

Please note that CRD of NPA-2008-17b "Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing - Part-FCL" is now open for consultation on EASA website.

See: http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_44

To place reactions please logon at EASA CRT application

And I was infuriated to read (concerning Flight Instructor requirements):

Never mind whether or not they are appropriate, Befehl ist Befehl!, it would seem....:mad:

And the LAFI still only needs 50 hours experience to remove the Restriction whereas a better qualified FI still needs 100 hours!

Note also the new Aerobatics, Towing and Flight Test Ratings!

Why is everyone so surprised? EASA FCL was always going to contain exactly what the bureaucracy wanted it to contain. It was never going to matter one iota what you or I thought about it - we represent nothing more than insignificant irritations that have to be humoured. The whole NPA/CRD process is, so far as EASA is concerned, a necessary, if tedious, formality that will, in the end, be consigned to the dustbin. The same will be true of OPS, ATC and all of the other areas that EASA will take responsibility for. Last I heard, the agency (I won't dignify it with a capital letter) employed over 500 people just one of whom had any professional flight experience. Welcome to the brave new world and thank the Great Green Arkleseizure that I'm almost out of it!

Thanks for not letting facts get in the way of your point :ugh:

OK, some exaggeration there I admit but, when applied to the Rulemaking Directorate, not that much. It just gets extremely frustrating when the blind dogma of lawyers and bureaucrats continually overrules considered professional judgement.

After 10 years of practicing EUROCRAP has finally arrived then!

Formal public exam for public role
 

>Agency has decided to re-introduce the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement

So to summarise the agency has decided that a flight instructor will still have to sit a formal professional pilot public written exam (in proper exam conditions) before being allowed to exercise his intended commercial role?

:eek:

I can't see why anyone would object to instructors having to pass the CPL knowledge. After all, they're not hard exams now, not like the old days:ok:

cpl theory
 

On that point does anyone know where its possible to do, or can suggest a school to study the CPL theory in the UK now ? Rather than do the ATPL's.
I am hoping to go full time into being an instructor over the next few years.

Another vote for GTS at Bournemouth for CPL ground course :D

However, unless you are sure you just want to instruct it is probably better to do the ATPL exams (not a lot of extra studying) as it keeps your options open for other professional flying careers

( Edward, we overlapped at GTS - we'll meet up at Sherburn no doubt)

Stuart Chater

CATS is good value for money.

Any info on when we can expect the new EASA Part-FCL and Part-Medical to pass legislation and thus fully replacing JAR-FCL?

March/April 2012

Just a reminder that tomorrow (Wednesday 9th) is the closing date for comments on the responses to comments. Gawd knows whether anything will make any difference, but at least one can try.

Go to the EASA CRT application, log in or register, 'View documents', and find NPA 2008-17b on the fourth page; right click and add general comments.

Windrusher

This may be relevant.

I think anyone who has had any meaningful dealings with the EASA bureaucracy will know exactly how much difference it will make. It is significant that EASA is currently lobbying the EC for exemption from the requirement to submit future amendments to the NPA process. Bear in mind also that anything that is in the Basic Regulation cannot be changed and anything that can be linked directly to an item in the Basic Regulation will not be changed.

Of course the Basic Regulation can be changed. But not by EASA - it would require EC political will and effort:

Just delete the part in blue, then 'devolve' competence for sub-ICAO licensing to national authorities under the principle of 'subsidiarity' which €urocrats are always quacking about!

Which, whilst true, is entirely irrelevant since the statement was made solely in the context of the deadline for reactions to the CRD for Part FCL which process, as you concede, cannot result in any changes to the Basic Regulation.

EASA have stated, officially, that the justification for retaining the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement for PPL instructors is because it is required under ICAO Annex 1.

This was the argument put forward by the Belgium national aviation authority which, ultimately, EASA acquiesced to.

There are a number of things wrong here.

First, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with flight safety - EASA's primary remit. Why? Because the LAFI rating to teach the LAPL doesn't require the CPL theoretical knowledge requirement, so clearly EASA doesn't see the CPL theory requirement as a boon to flight safety as it pertains to instructors.

Second, to date, the differences filed against ICAO Annex 1 is larger than the Annex itself, so any excuse that they have to toe the ICAO line is specious, to say the least.

Third, in my opinion, instruction should not classed as aerial work - which is the ONLY justification I can see for the CPL requirement.

The Basic Regulation MUST be re-written; EASA must be properly funded and staffed, and if these ridiculous new regs are to remain then they MUST be written as soft law - i.e. written in such a way that an 'alternative means of compliance' can be filed by our CAA. If these regs are put into hard law then only European Parliament can change them.

Regards, jez

I am just starting flying so please excuse my ignorance to all the regs.

I wish to become an instructor and have no interest in flying for airlines.

I was told that a new rule was coming in which would mean I did not have to do a CPL rating, just PPL and instructor but if I read this thread right this is not the case, I will have to do the CPL theory. Could someone confirm that I am reading this right, if so I may as well do the flight test and get the full CPL rating.

Thanks in advance.

the EASA recommendations
 

I am in exactly the same boat as you
I have been informed by a JAA examiner that you can instruct on the PPL with an FI rating but not for financial reward under the new EASA recommendations. The examiner also told me that you will need the CPL theory or ATPL theory to teach for financial reward but not the CPL Practical course.
I am going to do the CPL Theory and the practical as I think it will help me become a better instructor, and as I will be hoping to teach students for money I would prefer to teach them from the stronger standpoint of holding a full commercial license.
I am currently training in Florida and also doing my FAA instrument rating whilst I am here, to gain as much experience I can through these training periods as I feel the more experience you have the better the pilot and therefore the better the instructor you can become.

Stupix,

Thanks for your answer.

I agree that knowing the CPL theory could make you a better instructor and give you a better understanding.

Teejman

CPL-level knowledge is largely worthless to an FI at PPL-level.

However, relevant practical theoretical knowledge certainly would be of great worth. But of far greater importance is the ability to impart instruction, thorough knowledge of the training exercise and sound flying skills, together with good interpersonal skills.

The other problem with inexperienced pilots fresh out of the CPL student world is that they will try to teach people to fly PA28s like airliners; they will have an encyclopedic knowledge of trivia and very little airmanship.

Whereas an enthusiastic, experienced PPL-holding FI will probably have a lot more practical experience, a wider experience of SEP aeroplane operation in the PPL environment - and a genuine desire to instruct, rather than simply to build hours for some 737 co-pilot job.

EASA should expect considerable opposition to their volte-face on this nonsensical requirement for PPL/FIs to have CPL-level knowledge.

Interesting points BEagle.

When you think of it, it does make sense, after all you don't have to be an F1 driver to teach people how to drive, I think just get the instructor license.

I have done some teaching in the past and want to get back into it as I enjoyed it, this way I can combine my love of flying/aircraft as well.

I agree with your points about airmanship, far better to be able to fly rather than know the date of the Chicago convention. I was once told of a pilot that flew the frost off the wings, took most of the runway to get airborne.

CPL nees updating
 

Most people do the CPL exams (rather than the ATPL) because they want to satisfy the theoretical knowledge requirement of single crew flight operations for pilots who are paid professionally - and I agree BEagle that the syllabus should reflect this and make it relevant. The CPL misses the theoretical basis of teaching and learning which would be an add on. I can see why they want to ensure that instructors have a good theoretical base - this is not assured by the FI syllabus alone that only teaches a potential instructor for a few hours and they are not formally examined - other than in the air and a quick chat before the flight test (no written assessment). EASA are following the FAA ICAO model - although the CPL exam in the USA is more accessible and cheaper - less of a barrier...

On problem with the CPL is in reality its a subset of the ATPL question bank and therefore inappropriate - needs updating :rolleyes:

Of course there is no shortage of instructors at the moment anyway and relaxation of the rules would flood the market depressing wages below national min wage but thats irrelevant to the arguments above :*

The real problem is that nobody has ever sat down and worked out what a CPL holder needs to know. In the main it is just a bag of low quality questions that has evolved over the years which drifts further and further from reality. EASA will ensure that it never improves!

What needs addressing is that the vast majority of UK PPL instructors have never flown past the creases on their map.

In turn, they impart a similar level of expertise onto their students.

Which in turn helps to ensure that the vast majority of PPL graduates find the piece of paper next to useless (beyond the Bembridge cafe burger run) and chuck it all in within a year or so.

Which in turn helps to ensure that the training apparatus is almost never questioned - who is going to question it?? There isn't anybody around to question it.

And those very few who did drag themselves out of this dead end, bought their own plane (or into a group) and fly for real don't hang around the training environment anymore, and don't look back.

Quite how one would achieve this improvement within the present industry vested interests, I don't know, but it's pretty obvious that EASA doesn't either.

The problem is that there is no objective measure of the "product quality". The schools have no business objective, other than to sell hours, in their planes, with an instructor in the RHS for as long as possible.

I dont understand the comment:

Exactly what are you suggesting that PPL students are missing out on?

and the rest can only do it with a GPS!!

That may be part of the problem in the UK. However, a bigger part is that most of what is handed down in the UK is folklore and nothing more.

Let's look at a very simple part - do you get the instructors to teach the ICAO Annex and point the student to the appropriate part of the AIP for the relevant differences (as per JAR / EASA) or do you require the student to study some piece of legislation written by lawyers for lawyers which means they only know the local rules and have no idea what if any will apply when in another country.

Clasic case of making the easy difficult.

It is very hard to understand why a person setting out to be a teacher in a certain discipline would from the outset wish to avoid learning much of what they will teach if they succeed in being a good teacher.

The attitude of I want to teach but do not want to learn is the start of the rot and is propogated by people who have other reasons for ensuring that they have lots of rot to complain about.

If you want a career as a secondary school teacher then why on earth would you ever need to go to university? If you want to teach at university level then why on earth can't you simply finish your degree and teach the next day - with a brief how to operate an interactive white board.

Do you want your children being taught in secondary school by someone who holds all of 1 A level or your young people being lectured at university by a person that was s student themselves last week?

That is what is considered normal practice in the UK as far as flight training is concerned.

Show me any other area where those wishing to teach approach the task with the mindset of being as minimally skilled as possible and having gained as little knowledge of the industry as possible.

If you employed an electrician you would expect them to have ample knowledge and skill covering all the aspects of electrical instalation both theory and practice. Thankfully it is impossible to qualify as such if you only learn how to wire up light switches and refuse to bother about such things as sockets - because you think that there is enough business in only wiring light switches.

Unfortunately it is not only possible to qualify in the aviation industry with substandard knowldge and limited ability, these people get to teach others. As an industry it is not only unique it is unparalled because the very people that the industry decides are not suitable to progress are the very ones that continue to teach and in many cases become examiners.

Show me another industry where the apprentice who is never going tyo progress teaches the new apprentice and tests their ability

Therefore any attempt by EASA to change the rot is only to be welcomed.

People in for example the UK need to remember that EASA is legislating for Europe and people who have seen many ways of doing things will not always think that the UK way is best.

God you talk some rubbish, DFC....:rolleyes:

Interesting how under this European way, an instructor/examiner will be allowed to teach up to 50% of a course and then examine their own students; that should up the pass rate a bit especially in the commercial schools where they will no longer have to use independant examiners.

PhDs for all FIs I say :)
 

Oh go on then I'll reopen the old thread.

Instruction is a profession. Get over it. If you want to teach canoeing, diving, walking even underwater basket weaving then you need a formal qual. We all unanimously agree this to be FI(A) or CRI

However if you want to earn money then you should quite simply be a professional pilot, anything less is exactly that, something less in reality and fact.

Simply put IMHO if you haven't got a CPL or ATPL you should not earn money from instruction period.

Now whether or not the syllabus to achieve CPL is relevant and useful for those intending the FI only track, that is a whole other opinion. Before the shouting starts I do think that there should be certain grandfather rights and transfers for those with certain levels of experience (separate debate as to quanta) for a set amnesty period of say 24 months so we can clear up all those with old/unusual/foreign/military/etc quals BCP, UK only licences, QFIs, etc but after that simple anyone new in should be a professional pilot AND and FI/CRI IMHO.

For those thinking what does mach tuck, thermodynamics and polar stereographic charts have to do PPL instruction? Think where the students you instruct may one day end up.

Primary school teachers have degrees, secondary school the same and so do university lecturers. Do you not want people to think of flight instruction as a profession? If you do then get a professional qualification and leave the amateur stuff to showing your mates around the skies on bank holiday weekends.

:=

Now whose first?

I'll go first Vortex Thing. I agree with you! Why dumb down the 'Profession'?

The only argument I could understand, but not agree with, for the removal of the CPL requirement, was when clubs were losing money a couple of years ago due to an instructor shortage. This doesn't hold an water in the current climate.

If you were a student and had a choice of 2 brand new instructors with minimum hours would you want the one with CPL knowledge or the one with PPL knowledge?

I have no problem with grandfather rights.

Under the wonderful EASA proposals there are two levels of instructor, the new LAFI and the traditional FI. Both will have the privilege to train ab-initio students from zero to licence issue allbeit for different licences but, both will entitle the licence holder to fly throughout Europe with passengers.

The LAFI does not need CPL knowledge, completes a shorter course and guess what, can get rid of the restriction after supervising only 50 student solo flights.

The FI in contrast requires CPL level knowledge, has to complete a longer course and then has to supervise 100 student solos before they are deemed to have the judgment necessary to authorise a first student solo. The total privileges of the FI are greater but, the fundamental privilege to train a non pilot to a licence issue standard is very much the same.

How can anyone justify such nonsense on safety grounds? Obviously they can't and won't even try to; its simply a bureaucratic exercise being run by a bunch of lawyers who haven't got a clue what they are doing.

All the debate about what level of knowledge instructors should have is rather pointless with this two tier system just over the horizon. Suffice it to say the LAFI will become a much more popular rating because it will be cheaper and easier to achieve. Does this mean that the standard of instruction will fall, or does it mean that the extra qualifications demanded of an FI are pointless?

I see no reason why the standard of instruction shouldn't remain the same as it currently is, as indeed should the level of knowledge held by an FI. Since it is the FIEs who set the standard which is required to pass a Flight Instructor test there should be no significant change.

Regarding demonstration of CPL level knowledge, it is surely more appropriate that FIEs assess the level of knowledge of the FI, rather than the current situation: a lot of expensive written examinations which contain a small amount of GA-relevant information.

I don't think that will be (always) the issue. More likely scenario is to choose between a 1000s hours/many years PPL instructor and minimum hours/years CPL instructor - who would you go for?

From the theory perspective - which the question is about - flame-out of a jet engine or ATPL license hour requirements, while maybe of interest, are of no help in training a better PPL pilot - I suspect they are only patience tests (making maybe sense for ATPL level but of doubtful value for instruction in PPL training) - this just shows that all flight training/licensing is set up for ATPL and anything around it is just droppings from the table and that's why there is a CPL theory requirements for instructors (some requirements must be made and this is the one closest... I guess was the thinking)

Dumbing Down!
 

rasti

There should be only the choice between an instructor with lots and lots of experience and one with minimal experience. IMHO all instructors should have CPL knowledge so the difference would never exist.

Both you and ifitaintboeing refer to the lack of relevance and make some good points with respect to that.

Let me put it this way. In many a school teachers at ALL levels are degree educated in their particular field. i.e a geography teacher tends to have a degree in geography, a French teacher tends to have a degree in French etc, etc now whilst it is quite possible to go the route of having a degree in education and then specialising in modern languages. The depth of knowledge that the teacher with a specific subject knowledge has is always going to be better than a specialist educator with less depth. Now the specialist educator has other skills on the pastoral side, the cultural side an as an educational specialist and may go on to make a better educational manager headteacher, etc, etc.

Now I will agree that when we are looking at a 8 or 9 yr old learning French this matters very little. However when we get to 'A' Level French I would assert that we would prefer our children(who may or may not want to progress to BA level or beyond) to be taught by someone who has the greatest depth.

If the student pilot never has any design other than learning to fly and remaining at PPL level for ever then at best a PPL knowledge level instructor will bring them to their own level. A ATPL level knowledge instructor should be able to answer those questions that could kindle a deeper wish for knowledge and perhaps even a new career direction. In all students at all levels.

My point is surely you want the best qualified instructor absolutely possible not the one who can get the qualification with the least level of testing and examination possible. Do you want the recent graduate or the partner from the accountants to do you tax and accounts? If you had to go to court would you want the recent graduate or the seasoned barrister? When you are lying on the operating table having a triple bypass do you want the junior house officer doing their solo surgery or do you want the FRCS Cardio Thorasic Professor from a reknowned teaching university.

We want people to see aviation as a profession, so lets have, professional standards, profession like CPD, professional instructors and professional pilots ONLY as those instructors.

I rest my case.:oh:

And how do you propose to attract all these professional, career PPL instructors?

At current wage levels, PPL instruction can only be undertaken as a part-time job, a stepping-stone to an airline career, or for those who are independently wealthy.

Reading back through the thread, I'm not sure that anyone answered the specific points raised by Teejman and StupixThe current (that is after publication of the CRD but before any consideration of the reactions to it) proposal is that CPL (or ATPL) theoretical knowledge is a pre-requisite for the FI rating in all cases.

The proposed privileges of the PPL (but not the LAPL) include remuneration for flight instruction and testing provided that the relevant instructing/examining privileges are held.

This, I believe, is unlikely to change (although I hope I'm wrong) because EASA cannot make pragmatic judgements. They were directed, following their slapping down by the Commission, to stick as closely as possible to JAR-FCL/ICAO. CPL knowledge is an ICAO requirement and therefore it will stay, however inappropriate it may be and whatever the outcry from the 'stakeholders'.