There might be a point doing the full ATPL as it’s not that much more work and gives you the theory for an IR if you want to do that. It would give you another string to your instructing bow.

As per GtE’s post. Up to LAPL would be quite limiting IMHO

I teach LAPL, Night Ratings, IR(R), IR and MEP and hold a couple of examiner certificates and do very nicely thank you very much without CPL TK

Yes, there are quite a few when you look around. Instead of spending 800 hrs studying CPL TK most of which I felt would not be as relevant, I spent the 800 hrs flying VFR and IFR in singles and twins UK and Europe to build up real practical experience to teach people to fly in the GA environment. Diff’rent folks, diff’rent strokes.

A niche minority whatever way you look at it. As a very large flying school running over 200 students a year I can count the number of LAPL students on Homer Simpson’s hand....... An Instructor only able to teach LAPL and night is useless in a normal school. There may be a few niche schools that have accommodated them but that does not make it a viable career path i anybody’s book. It’s just hand to mouth teaching.

non of which you are teaching on your heavily restricted FI...... ;)

dont false advertise.....

Don’t descend to accusations please, no false advertising here, you stick to your world and I am happy in mine thanks very much. It works for me and I am sure yours works for you.

There are many types of flight that can be taught without CPL TK, there is standalone MEP CRI and standalone IRI which are quite achievable without CPL TK, an FI(A) without CPL TK can teach LAPL and night ratings but cannot teach PPL. The CAA do authorise the teaching of IR(R) with IR TK, they even changed the IN to reflect this. Also an FI(A) can examine LAPL and NPPL but not PPL. I don’t teach PPL that’s true and that is a limitation but it bothers me not a jot because there is plenty of other work in my MEP/IR(R)/IR/PBN and glass cockpit niche to keep me happy.

So let’s politely agree to disagree on this one.

An FI without CPL TK can teach only for LAPL and NIght.

Everything else you do is done under different ratings. You are false advertising what FI without CPL TK can do and muddying the waters with the additional stuff you do. I am glad you have a niche that works for you but misleading people into thinking that a FI with CPL TK is a viable way to make a living is wrong.

I am speaking as the Head of Training of a large school and someone who holds all the qualifications you do and many more. We NEVER teach ab initio LAPL courses. We NEVER teach ab initio NPPL courses. Both are routes historically for people converting licences and are rare. The core of our business is PPL, CPL, ME, IR and Class and Type Ratings. So the only thing an FI without CPL TK could do for me is teach a night Rating. Which means they have no chance of getting a job with us. There may be a few nich operators out there that could use such a limited rating but encouraging people to undertake an expensive course with little chance of work at the end is wrong.

All of your extra teaching qualifications also come at significant cost in terms of gaining the experience to teach them and the additional courses needed. None of that comes with a LAPL restricted FI.

So no no we can’t agree to disagree because I believe you are being dishonest with your answers in relation to the original question.