So has the debate been documented somewhere?

G

Which debate joe?

If you mean the PPL FI debate? It currently resides with the various working groups of which I sit on a couple and I believe Beagle sits on many.

Bose,

Sorry , I should have been more specific. I was just interested in reading where the debate with the CAA/AOPA and/or the JAA was going as an aside from what is very elqouently being said by you, BEagle and others on here.

I take it that aside from BEagle's paper nothing else has been written?

G

Joe,

No there is plenty written about it and more than just Beagles proposal. They are sat with EASA at the moment. I am not sure on the progress as they are on the periphary of the things I am dealing (Intrument Rating) but I am happy to enquire and provide you with more information.

Sequencing change
 

Yes MILECR I know of many also who are flying for various airlines after having got 1000 hrs plus flying single crew. Some got their hours under the old PPL FI BCPL CPL IR ATPL others more recently.
In the future under this proposal they will just pitch up at the flying school earlier with PPL FI rather than CPL FI...... i.e. less exams passed and then do the exams/flight tests whilst working at the school

....and stay longer at a given school.

So surely this would be a good thing?

Lower entry qualification
 

Possibly but will they have as much knowledge, skill and experience?

there you go again assuming that schools want hour building FI's! I assume you are one yourself?

Schools want continuity, they hate the short term hours builders and the PPL FI route suits them. So they will be able to choose from the experianced guys.

EASA requies instructors to have theoretical knowledge and experience requirements '....appropriate for the instruction being given'.

So it is highly likely that the PPL/FI will have several hundred hours of relevant personal experience of grass strip operation, navigating around the UK under VFR and experiencing UK weather over a few years as a PPL holder, probably one who has used an IMC Rating. Which will be of a lot more use than someone whose sole experience amounts to minimum time beacon-bashing under the hood or a handful of hours staggering around the sky in a Seneca on one engine wth an instructor in the other seat.

Own flying skills, ability to impart instruction and knowledge of the exercises to be flown, plus appropriate theoretical knowledge will be no lower than the present 'standard' - and hopefully the focus will be on the ability to impart instruction.

Additionally, it could well be a less expensive, albeit slower route to the airlines for those who yearn to fly people-tubes. Obtain PPL, IMC Rating and Night Qualification and build up flying time. Apply for FI course. Apply for job as PPL/FI. Get paid - and save pennies towards CPL/IR. Meanwhile, network with others and perhaps get noticed and accepted for full airline sponsorship - which will have to come as the pilot shortage is unlikely to be met any other way.......

Thank you BEagle - I couldn't have said it better.....even in Pashto :ok:

Driven by money concerns
 

----> highly likely that the PPL/FI will have several hundred hours
But there isn't any such hours requirement on the proposal :confused:

No - because the key requirement is for 'appropriate' experience. Rather than some meaningless hours figure gained flogging up and down the East Floridian coast, the intention is for competency-based assessment.

'Hours' prove NOTHING!