PPL-FI Requirements changing with EASA?
 

Afternoon chaps,

I'd very much like to do my FI rating so that I could instruct at weekends for the fun of it in addition to my full time ops job, but at the moment I can't see the point in spending 12 months doing my ATPL theory exams considering that I plan to start the CPL ME/IR MCC training in three years time, and thus my exams would have lapsed by then! Now I heard somewhere that the introduiction of EASA will drop the requirement for a PPL wanting to undertake an FI rating to have completed either the CPL or ATPL theoretical knowledge exams. Is this truly the case? If so, when can we expect to see this change implemented? If this does come about I would certainly undertake an FI rating!

Cheers,


Ox

Watch the press this has not been decided yet but is in the pipe line . Im keen to do this as well .

I would imagine at least 2-3 years for implementation of any change here.

TOO

1-2 years, perhaps.

As I understand it, to instruct at PPL level you will no longer be required to have passed the CPL or ATPL exams, you will not be required to hold a Class 1 medical - and EASA intends to file a variance from ICAO in allowing PPL/FIs to instruct for remuneration.

However, there will still be experience requirements to meet and the FIC to pass - no chnages in instructional standards will be accepted.

This should allow more experienced PPL holders to become part-time FIs and reduce the industry's dependence on pre-airline hours builders.

...and in the process, dropping salaries which FI's can expect, as every T,D and H will go and do an FI rating. Maybe?:{


PS, not every FI is on his way to an airline job!;)

Certainly hope that this would not happen. I think the numbers would be fairly small - it's still a big enough commitment and your average PPL is unlikely to make it. And there certainly is a considerable shortage of instructors! I'd certainly instruct if I could but at 57 years old there's no way I can justify the enormous expenditure in both time and effort to do the CPL exams.

Beagle,

I may be wrong but I recall reading that the EASA proposal was to permit "PPL FI" instructors to instruct to LAPL (or whatever the licence will be called) level only and that instructors teaching for the "EASA PPL" (again, whatever it will be called!) would still require CPL theory.

Have the minutes of the last FCL1 sub-committee meeting been published anywhere yet?

2close

A mere spring chicken yet!

I've just started a career as FI. I know one school where the CFI and deputy CFI are both well over 65 and still going strong.

You're right, it is a big effort, then you have to do the FI course which I found to be the hardest flying I've ever done, but I'm glad I made it.

TheOddOne

Just finished my CPL / FIC and turned 59! Go for it, you will find it fun/challenging/rewarding :ok:

Touchngo

To be honest, it's the hassle factor that puts me off :ugh:. The nearest schools that do the CPL are nowhere near here and Gatwick is almost 400 miles away. By the time you've added in overnight accommodation you've spent several hundred quid more for each trip down there. It's just :mad: bonkers having to do so much travelling to take a bunch of exams that, for the most part have no relevance to the job at hand. The cost is outrageous too.

The longer people put up with this ridiculous situation, the longer it will be before the much needed changes are implemented.

As someone who has had to jump through all the hoops to work as an instructor under the current system and has paid vast sums of money to various flight training institutions to achieve this, I have a very negative view of allowing PPL's to instruct for renumeration. The only reason that the GA industry are now bleeting is that they can no longer have a ready supply of eager wannabe airline pilots willing to work for peanuts just to get that first interview. As we all know 700 hours in a Cessna no longer does it for the airlines. They would rather take someone who has paid for a type rating. The problem for the local flying club (and the CFI) who may post here, is that they don't have much to offer someone who wants to be an airline pilot anymore. i.e. who wants to pay £6000 to earn £12000 a year? They will have even less to offer when the new multicrew licence comes in. I've got a good idea, let's let Jim who is a PPL at the club with lots of money pay us £6000 to do the course then we can pay him peanuts, as he is rich already so doesn't need the money.

I don't recall any of my training institutions telling me what a tragedy it was that I had to pay them to obtain a CPL in order to work as a flying instructor. Strangely their view seems to have changed now.

As for those who say it is too expensive and too much hastle to obtain a CPL this doesn't ring true either. How do you get to be an experienced PPL without money? If you can't put up with the hastle of studying the subject you wish to teach should you really be doing it?

BEagle, how many hours and how many hours of doing what, as a PPL do you think would be sufficient to start an FI(R) course?

If anyone thinks there will be a quality filter, where those who fall short of the standard required will be refused the ticket, I suggest this is wishful thinking. As we all know, if you are FI trained by Bloggs (£6000) you will be sent to Bloggs 2 for your test (£200 ish). Bloggs 2 will also send his students to Bloggs 1 to be tested. Gentleman's agreement you know! How many people reading this know of someone who failed their instructor course or test? I don't.

Sorry, but I feel there has been a slant on this forum which suggests that the whole of the GA world think that it is a good idea for PPL's to be able to instruct for money. In case you didn't realise, I don't. :*

Pringle1, as you are a professional pilot, you will doubtless know the answer - or be able to find it in LASORS.....

In case you can't:

Have at least a CPL(A) or completed at least 200
hours of flight time of which 150 hours as
Pilot-in-Command if holding a PPL(A).

i. Completed at least 30 hours on single engine
piston powered aeroplanes of which at least 5
hours shall be in the six months preceding the
pre-entry flight test.

ii. Completed at least 10 hours instrument flight
instruction in aeroplanes of which not more
than 5 hours may be instrument ground time
in a FNPT or a flight simulator.

iii. Completed at least 20 hours of cross-country
flight as PIC of aeroplanes, including a
cross-country flight of at least 540km (300 nm)
in the course of which full-stop landings at two
aerodromes different from the aerodromes of
departure shall be made.

iv. Pass a specific pre-entry flight test with a FI
qualified as per JAR-FCL 1.330(f) based upon
the proficiency check as per JAR-FCL
1.240(b), within the six months preceding
the start of the course.


PPL/FIs were quite happily providing remunerated flight instruction at PPL level years ago. The industry valued their experience.

However, under the new proposals, there is nothing to prevent people-tube wannabees from hours building as FIs - the difference being that schools will probably have a wider choice of applicants to choose between.

Pringle 1

I'll answer that question directly. I have around 300 hours P1, gained over four years, all in the sort of aircraft that people do ab initio training in. I feel that I have enough experience to have a crack at the pre-entry flight test for the FI course. A year ago I would not have felt ready.

I understand your point of view, essentially it is "I had to do it so everyone else should have to as well". I cannot agree with it.

Pringle 1,

I, too, jumped through all the present hoops to become a FI. However, I can't see an objection to changing the rules to allow suitable PPLs to instruct for a Private Pilot's Licence of whatever flavour or hue (EASA PPL, LAPL, NPPL or whatever). It's FAR more important, in my view, that FIs should be properly trained and tested to ensure they can instruct effectively than whether or not they've attained a certain academic standard at a higher level. This latter probably matters if you're doing the ab initio work on an integrated course, but then if you're doing that the school are going to need you to have a CPL, ME-IR etc so you can instruct to that level, too.

In the short-term at least, I can't see an influx of PPL-only-holding instructors having any effect on the FI market or more importantly on wages, the numbers entering the industry are going to be pretty small.

TheOddOne

Having trained a number of FIs who either had 300 hours as a PPL, or had just graduated from an Integrated ATPL course, I'd take the 300 hour PPL any day. Some of the Integrated Course graduates had as little as 50 hours PIC on a single; and appeared to have learned nothing useful from the 700 hours of theoretical training.

As I thought, the suggestion is a reduction in the standard required to be able to instruct for money. Yes I know you can become an instructor as a PPL already (hours as Beagle specifies) and I know some PPL's (BCPL's) were rightly given grandfather rights which is of course only fair.

You didn't mention the current requirement to demonstrate knowledge to CPL level even if you are a PPL. Do you think this should be removed? If you do.......the knowledge base level of PPL instructors will reduce.

Yes, I know I am saying, "I had to so so should you." We all tend to look at these things 'selfishly' as demontrated by Westmorland who believes he is ready to start an FI course. He or she may well be of an appropriate standard but how can they demonstrate this. Perhaps a pre entry flight test with the person you are about to pay do the course is not the best way? It's all very subjective.

The current shortage of instructors is what is driving this. As a body of professionals I don't think we are standing up for ourselves. The plumber who fitted my boiler a month ago was able to charge a pretty high price for the job as there is a shortage of plumbers. He didn't get together with his plumber mates and say....lets forget about the Corgi thing and let the builders mate go and quote for jobs. Why not?...... "I had to do it, so so should you. " They are wise enough to realise that standards would drop and ultimately they would all lose money.

Why are existing instructors driving this?

Whilst I find it hard to believe that most integrated school graduates show poor theoretcial knowledge of flying I am definately in the pro-EASA recommendation camp.

A newly qualified CPL holder with around 200 hours is still very inexperienced - they will not have had much P1 experience, especially when making weather calls (which is the primary flight safety decision I find myself making on a daily basis as an instructor) as this decision will have been made by their own instructors during their training. Those with experience know that examining the METARS/TAFS studiously is no comparrison for the kind of met knowledge you gain through flying every day. Also, most CPL holders of recent years have gained their P1 time (and CPL!) in Florida. A totally different environment to the UK!

Therefore, I would like to add one stipulation to the minimum hours requirement in this EASA proposal and that is that all applicants must have completed 200 hours as P1 in the country they wish to instruct in. 150 P1 in the Florida sun means jack sh1t when you fly in the UK and I fear many will start using this route to obtain their PPL FI ticket just as wannabe airline modular students do which is not so much of a problem when the individual wishes to move straight to an airline but when they wish to instruct it adds a whole new worrying dimension. Will schools be that flush with instructors they will be able to turn those less attractive away?

As I see it - Joe Bloggs with zero flying time can sod off to the USA, get his PPL, hours build and then do the FIC (in the USA) and within a coupla months from start to finish be back here in the UK knocking on a flying school's door asking for an FI job. Hmmm....... :bored:

VFE.

Not what I said! They may well have learned a lot of knowledge to pass exams but that knowledge is not a great deal of use on a FI Course.

I disagree - especially when it comes to the long briefings.

VFE.

Indeed, the other thing about most new FI's is that the knowledge is recent, by the time a PPL gets "Experienced" or "suitable" its probably 4 or 5 years since they had ground instruction or passed an exam only to a PPL level.

Invariably most/some committed students may be of a technical background pehaps (and only perhaps - b4 I get flamed) an IT or engineering background, it will become the blind leading the blinded.

Some sort of Pre course ground exam needs to be put in place - and it better be bloody difficult, some students crave knowledge and can ask very awkward questions :ooh:

Pringle 1

Perhaps the standards were dropped when the requirement for 700 hours to gain a CPL were dropped? How many hours did you need for your CPL? :hmm: But I suppose that's different?

I have the greatest respect for those who "jump through the hoops" to get their CPL/fATPL + FIR, but just because they had to, doesn't mean it's the "right" way! We had PPL instructors years ago, and there were still career instructors. The standards of instruction were certainly not lower, and many would argue the standard was much higher! I'd love to see PPL FIR's back. I think we lost a great deal of our "soul" when the rules were changed. Flying clubs became flying schools, and the fun just seemed to drain away. Why do you think Microlight clubs have enjoyed such success over the past decade?

PPL FIR's should not be seen as a threat. They should be the backbone of our clubs and the familiar faces that don't up and leave when the first airline post beckons! Multi, IR, CPL instruction is all there for the devoted CPL FIR who wants to make a career of instructing. FI pay has always been crap! It was when there were PPL instructors, and it has been since there haven't (well not many). You could increase the cost of basic PPL instruction, but if you did, you'd just loose customers to Microlights and Gliding (or to aviation all together). Instead of moaning about the crappy wages, you'd be better off just biting the bullet, accepting it like most do and dream of the day you can get an airline pilots wage. Unfortunately what people are payed in various walks of life often doesn't reflect what they're worth! :mad:

SS

SS - one other point:

Currently, the airline wannabe has to obtain the CPL and FI Rating before being permitted to instruct for remuneration. Many will be sorely out of pocket for years, so will obviously jump at the first chance of an airline job and the opportunity to reduce their debt accordingly.

Whereas a PPL holder can build up pre-FI time as and when without having to give up any other 'day job', then embark upon the course. As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds.

I undertstand why a flying club manager or CFI may want these changes to put bums on seats. I also appreciate that 700 hour PPL may have more to offer than a 200 hour CPL. Beagle is not argung for the 700 hour PPL however. He is arguing for a 200 hour PPL without the CPL ground exams or class 1 medical, as per his post qouting Lasors. Yes, I'm sure we all know an experienced PPL who would make an excellent instructor. But what is stopping him or her doing the CPL exams and flight test? Money? In the case of the 200 hour PPL, perhaps this is the case. The 700 hour PPL would have difficulty saying they were short of cash. Please don't say they don't have the time. If they don't, how will they ever find time to instruct. Perhaps they couldn't cope with the ground exams? Need I say any more?

Beagle, Whopity et al, I hope I havn't misread your thoughts. As far as I can tell you are saying that a PPL with 200 hours flying around Florida including the long Navex etc is just suitable as a CPL with 200 hours. If so, there is something seriously wrong with the CPL syllabus and testing. After all it is the minimum requirement that is disputed issue here.

I couldn't agree more that P1 experience is invaluable, but this is an argument to increase the amount of P1 required, not reduce the training requirement. Incidentally Whopity your good 300 hour PPL FI student probably had at least 100 hours more P1 than the proposed minimum.

Shortstripper you may have a point about falling standards since the old 700 hour CPL requirement. My point is that some instructors here seem to be arguing for a futher reduction in the base level required to join the profession (I qualified under the old CAA system incidentally).

I wonder how many low hour PPL's there are out there sitting on their money intending to spend it on a 2 month trip to Florida so they can become a flying instructor. I wouldn't blame them for this. As VFE suggests, by then the market will be so short of 'suitable' candidates your local flying club won't be able to wait for Mr or Mrs 700 hours trained in the UK. The people who are holding back in hope are only making the shortage of instructors worse.

Lets not pretend this is anything other than a drop in standards to fill empty instructor positions. Necessary though it may be. It is for the industry (our employers) to argue their case, not us, as we are the only ones who stand to lose.

Yes, ultimately that is precisely what it is. And for a reason. In the same way as a wannabe driving instructor does not need to know all about the innards and regulations pertaining to HGV trucks and Pendolino trains, the wannabe PPL instructor has no need of the majority of the knowledge that is in the CPL examinations.

I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying.

I see no evidence that the old system, which did not require CPL knowledge, produced inferior FIs who in turn produced poorly trained PPLs. Au contraire, the usual consensus seems to be that the training was better in the old days. A return to the old system is eminently sensible and to be commended.

Why do you think an experienced PPL can't argue they're short of cash? I am, I have a poorly payed job (for what the hours I do and the qualifications I have ... so it's not exclusive to FI's) and a large family. I have managed to continue to fly for the last 20 years by various means, but I sure as hell can say that I am short of cash :sad: Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course!

In France PPL's teach and the French do not interpret the requirement to demonstrate CPL knowledge as having to pass the CPL ground exams ... so why do we here? I'd happily self study and take the exams if I didn't have to attend GS to do it ... again, this is somthing you didn't have to do before. The CPL exams have now been geared toward the fast track CPL / fATPL and the way they are layed down is absolutely irrellevent to PPL instruction. There must be a way to demonstrate in-depth knowledge for PPL instructors that doesn't mean you have to prove you can go on to be an airline pilot ... Many of us don't want too!

SS

I'm firmly of the opinion that one can't ever have too much theoretical knowledge of aviation related subjects to perform efficiently as a flying instructor. Agreed that one doesn't use a fraction of it on a day-to-day basis but, just occasionally, the student will ask a deep and penetrating question and it helps to be able to answer it.

As to PPL instructors, if they can achieve the required standard they will be a great asset to any FTO. A certain venerable gentleman, who was the doyen of FI examiners spent an entire career instructing on a PPL (and his theoretical knowledge was legendary).

If I have a discomfort about the well-being of the instructing trade it is wondering where the next generation of career instructors will come from. When I started in the late seventies an instructor with all the various teaching and examining credentials made a fairly modest salary but it was enough to service the mortgage on a reasonable home. Nowadays the financial rewards are still modest but the property values have raced ahead to the degree that only someone with independent means can realistically contemplate a career in instruction. Worrying.

Very true, but the same can be said of many occupations. The sad fact is, that as hard as it is, it's no arguement for singling instructors out for special treatment. Let's face it, taking a typical PPL (with a couple of hundred hours) who decides to then go on to instruct, you're looking at what? £15-20K to add a basic CPL and FIR. A two year diploma course in most subjects probably costs similar. The wages for a job that the Diploma gets you will probably yield similar money for the first few years. The difference is that flight training doesn't qualify for grants or cheap loans ... which is a pity. Sad fact of life is that certain jobs will always be thought of as a stepping stones to a future career higher up the ladder. Those wishing to do such jobs are usually young, single and willing to accept the pay in order to progress their career. The problem on this forum is that many seem to think that flying instructors are unique!

SS

There is talk around my parts that rather like the IMC rating the BCPL may well be about to go. My excellent source (an FIE) informs me that the CAA and EASA are steadfastly at the moment sticking to the line that if you are a BCPL holder and you want to continue to be remunerated for working as an FI you will have to go to Gatwick and take the CPL writtens.

I can think of one or two experienced PPL's at my club who would make very good instructors and others who definetely would not. There is a great difference between making the decision to go flying and making the decision to go flying with a student, something not well understood by a lot of PPL's. All very good going off in your own well maintained Warrior or Arrow with full IFR kit Garmins etc on a marginal day. Very different in a knackered old Cessna with just a VOR.

The issue people like myself have is the old BCPL system enabled people to get into a position to be paid for flying without having taking any more exams then those they are to teach, and have IMC priveleges embedded for life in their license without the need to ever take an IMC renewal. The rest of us have had to pay large sums of money to get into the position to earn not alot and have to pay out each year to keep our IR's current. There are also those who of course abuse their BCPL and get remunerated for things that they should not be getting remunerated for, taking yet more money away from those of us who hold full, proper, professional pilots licenses.

I DID the CPL writtens, took and passed the CPL flight test and have a BCPL on the strength of that. I guess that my licence will disappear along with all other national licences and ratings. Personally at the moment I'm content with having SEP, FI(R) CRI and IMC ratings on my BCPL and for the forseeable future. My ambition lies in getting the first solo restriction removed, then the night and applied instrument restrictions. In the fullness of time and considerable more experience, I'd like to consider an Examiner rating, but that's some way ahead. I don't know how many other people are currently in my position with a BCPL gained by passing the CPL stuff, passing few, I'd guess. I might have to look at an upgrade to CPL, but it's not something I need, I'd only really do it to protect my considerable investment so far. Presumably an upgrade would be to a JAA-CPL, which would automatically transfer to an EASA-CPL?

Cheers,
TheOddOne

If you did the CPL writtens and took the flight test why didn't you apply for a full CPL in the first place?

I think you'll find there are EU laws on making people unemployable in the manner being suggested, at the very least there will be compensation due.

If the above mentioned proposal to make BCPL holders with an FI rating unemployed goes through prepare to see the state of instructing go downhill DRASTICALLY very quickly. It is a nonsensical idea tantamount to putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

EASA? I've sh1t 'em! :rolleyes:

VFE.

Guys, gals and...others. Would your BCPL FIs be OK to accept an EAS PPL/FI Rating, as long as it conferred the right to receive remuneration?

Just a question - because I think that's what will be on offer.

I cannot speak for them personally but IMC instructing aside, I do believe the fear of not being remunerated is what scares most so yes, I would imagine they'd be appeased with one of those EASA doobriwazzanames... so long as they don't have to go back to the classroom!

VFE.

timzsta,

...because under the old 3-tier medical system, I could only get a Class II, not a Class I, due eyesight correction required (JUST outside the limit). The BCPL only needed an old Class II as it was for all types of aerial work, not Public Transport. The CPL/ATPL at the time (1989) required a CAA Class I. The 'new' JAR Class I correction requirements changed recently, bringing me comfortably INSIDE the limit, so I now have a full JAR Class I medical, initial issue at the age of 57! (So I guess I must be fairly fit & healthy).

TheOddOne

The Odd One - I never knew that re the Class 2 and the BCPL. Learn something each day.

Guys,

Beagle, I thought you were against hours builders who were aiming at the airlines. If so why say this:

"As soon as they have passed, they can apply for an instructing position either full or part-time and save up for the 'fATPL' course. Which they will enter with rather more airmanship and experience than someone who has never flown before - and arrive at the airline with all that fATPL knowledge still fresh in their minds."

Make your mind up! Who do you want, hours builders or committed instructors!

Westmorland. You say:

"I have no doubt that I could pass the CPL examinations - I have passed plenty enough other exams in my time and have spent a career in high tech where one never stops learning. The money is not an issue either, in the overall scheme of things. But I have never found myself needing to learn utterly irrelevant stuff in such volume as seems to be required for the wannabe FI. It is that that I object to. My time is precious to me and I would rather spend it on things that I enjoy, such as flying."

If you are so clever do the exams. It may save embarrassment when your PPL wannabe airline pilot asks you a difficult question..... If you can't answer them perhaps you could ask a CPL qualified instructor. (who will be paid the same if he or she is instructing to PPL level). I would rather fly all the time as well but there is this thing called the long briefing I have to do which seems to help the student as well!

Shortstripper. You say:

"Why do you think an experienced PPL can't argue they're short of cash? I am, I have a poorly payed job (for what the hours I do and the qualifications I have ... so it's not exclusive to FI's) and a large family. I have managed to continue to fly for the last 20 years by various means, but I sure as hell can say that I am short of cash :sad: Time IS another issue despite what you say, in fact with me it's the main one. I could easily do a day of instructing a week, but it would be very difficult to find the time to attend the now compulsary ground school part of the CPL's as well as the FI course. It could be done, but it would take two years of my holiday time just for the ground exams, and that's before the FIR course!

Sorry, it was a sweeping statement to say that all PPL's with a few hours under thier belts must be loaded. I too have been scratching around for the last 20 years picking up an hour here and an hour there.

I understand it is difficult, but I completed my ground exams whilst in full time employment by correspondence course . I completed My FI(R) course whilst in full time employment on my days off and holidays. I also have kids and have had to sacrifice time with them and my wife to get where I am. I have to instruct part-time as I need a full time job outside aviation to pay the mortgage and feed the kids.

Almost time to put the violin back in it's case........ I fear those who will suffer most from Beagle's proposals are committed, weekend, CPL qualified PPL instructors.....Like me!

Shame none of you have mentioned the most important instructional quality, enthusiasm and a shame you cannot sit an examination for it. A student wants to sit by someone who is enthusiastic about teaching them to fly, it matters not one jot if that instructor can plot his way across the Atlantic or describe how an FMS works.

I have nothing against people wishing to join the airlines per se.

But having to pay back the costs of CPL and FI Rating is an enormous burden - and of course they'd be off to anyone offering them an airline post as soon as possible. Because of debt!

Whereas being able to hold some day job whilst building pre-entry hours for the PPL/FI course would be more affordable. Then recover the cost of the course by working as a PPL/FI. Once that's paid for, save for the CPL course - or take out a loan. Then no need to build hours after the CPL course, so off to an airline with all that CPL knowledge fresh in the mind....

No doubt about it. One day I want to fly for an airline. That is my aim. But I can tell you at the moment, nothing, nothing at all, beats the thrill of watching one of my students flying solo around the circuit, thinking "I and I alone have taught him how to do that".

This misnoma that modern day Instructors are just hours builders is horlicks. It maybe the ultimate desire to get into the Airlines but don't think for a minute please that whilst we are FI's we are 100% commited to the student and their development.

I put the students development and need first, second and third. Then it's the Flying Clubs need, then its my development as a professional pilot last and very last.

I think the arguements here are a little off target. I'm one of the ones that had to go well over the top to become a career instructor and naturally would feel agrieved if those that follow could do the same job far quicker, far cheaper, for the same reward.

That said, the arguement is not with those individuals but with the regulators and their final salary pensions that make rules only to be undone when they don't suit. Someone, somewhere laid down that PPL FI's were not the they way to go so changed it all. Now apparently all that was wrong. Who made the decision, why, where are they now and if still inpost should be fired for getting it so wrong. I would so love a job with so much influence yet so little responsibility for the outcome of that influence.

-VERoC