PPL Instructors - Myth or Eventuality?
 

The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) is proposing that PPL holders with an appropriate flight instructor's rating can provide flight instruction for various private pilots' licences and ratings, and be paid for it to boot. As per existing ICAO requirements, PPL fllight instructors will not be permitted to provide instruction to CPL and higher licence holders.

Will this initiative ever see daylight in Oz and what's the general view of the PPrune pilot community to this EASA initiative? Is it a good thing or not?

Why stop there?

Great idea! I think once you have gone solo you should be able to teach someone up to solo standard - provided of course that you hold the appropriate instructor's rating!

I guess that would be the "Student Pilot Instructor's Rating"! It would fit between the "GFPT Instructor's Rating" and the "PPL Instructor's Rating"!

Dr :8

In OZ, under HGFA, any pilot holding 100 hours of flight time, deputised by the CFI, can conduct TIF's. This is just a bit of a step.... a very big one.... beyond that!

If a PPL has the appropriate experience requirements and does a full instructor course I don't see the real problem with it.

I'm sure there are plenty of PPL holders with thousands of hours and many years of experience that could teach just as well, and possibly better than a 200hr bare CPL with an instructor rating.

NZ had PPL instructors but did away with them a couple of years back.

Instead of allowing inexperienced people to instruct, why don't they try and encourage experienced people into instructing by allowing them to do an abbreviated instructor rating course? I have several thousand hours, 13 instrument renewals and have been a training captain with a regional airline, yet if I want to instruct other than under a CAR 217 arrangement, I need to complete the same 50 hour course and go via the Grade 3 instructor route!

I would love to pass on some of the knowledge that I have gained over the last 26 years, but spending 50 hours in a C152 to get there just doesn't yank my chain!

Now this is not to undermine the many fine instructors around the country, but I believe such a scheme could provide a considrable knowledge base to the instructing profession!:ok:

Well said, Howard Hughes.

Contrast the equivalent of CAO 40.1.7 in the US - in order to instruct multi-engines, you'd only need 5 hrs ME in the specific make and model : SFAR 61.195(f).

I don't understand what the fuss is all about either.

Not trying to nitpick, but you'll more than likely be flying one for more than 50 hours after you get the rating.

Having said that I do understand where you're coming from, maybe RPL would be in order.

Nobody "did away with them"! They mostly died of natural causes! :E

Dr :8

HH, I believe that was the idea in the draft CASR91. I attended that big conference some years ago, FLOT2003?, and there was a good discussion and general agreement.

As was pointed out by my Testing Officer on my PPL test it's the vetting of a person for their first licence which requires the most attention and carries the most risk of letting loose an accident-waiting-to-happen. PPL and even GFPT for that matter is where nailing it matters most.

Some will argue that the testing is where is will make a difference to which and whom I ask "who knows better what will be expected than an trained person in the structured environment of a school?"

Perhaps I'm being too protectionist or precious but I cannot see the logic in having a lower standard of training and vetting pilots. Yes there are some PPLs who would be up to scratch and yes there are some CPLs who are woefully ill-prepared such inequities are totally unavoidable. The answers to stopping these gaps are operating within the bounds of a structured environment and recurrent checking of the trainer.

With apologies for being redundant as I'm too tired to edit now,

FRQ CB

Deputised eh, do they get a gun and ten gallon hat thrown in?

j3

I'm pretty sure (but not certain) that they have PPL instructors in the UK.

Why not? CPL does not equal experienced, anymore than PPL equals inexperience. I sincerely doubt anyone would advocate allowing inexperienced pilots to become instructors, but I'd expect the instructor training, rating issue and exam to deal with that part.

Surely the question is whether the pilot is up to the standard required to instruct, not whether they've got a commercial or not.

Not only might it happen but should IMHO.
Ofcourse teachers, tradesman (who have been teaching apprentices for decades) etc with many hours PPL flying experiance would make better instructors than snotty nosed 200hr wizz kids who have hardly ever flown away from there training airport. So long as they do an instructor course so they follow the required carriculum go for it I say and the flying fraternity will be better off for it. The Gliding fraterity have done it this way for ever. Since when has a CPL made someone all knowledgable? Let me tell you from someone that knows first hand the electrical/electronic trade course is 10 times more involved and difficult than the CPL. Most trades would be the same. In fact the trouble with the present system is it is too easy and too many half wits are instructing now. Look at all the mid air collisions and near misses we have at GAAPs these days with instructors with their CPL's onboard.

See, 8+ years ago there wouldn't have been a problem for an experienced PPL to get an instructors rating and instruct to their hearts content. All they would have had to do was CPL theory for change out of $200 for the test fee, three tests in one day simplicity, then do a CPL flight test before embarking on the instructors rating. Hardly expensive and they would walk away with the CPL to boot. Now if they want to do it you need to bring your cheque book. CPL theory through ASL has become ridiculous to the extreem. Seriously.... 7 exams???????? At how many $$$ per exam??????? That alone will put off any PPL holder who might want to have a crack at instructing. Bring back the old CPL theory system.

I was trained in the UK system by people who had PPL and instructor's rating.
Most were building hours for the CPL (you needed 700 for a CPL there then) then they were off to the airlines. Others couldn't get the class 1 medical eg for eyesight so the only flying job they could do was instruct as PPLs. This was before the BCPL came in in 1991 and changed everything (just as I was right in the middle of it!)

Some were excellent and some were woeful, just as some low hours CPLs are excellent and some are woeful. It wasn't the licence they held that made a difference, but their ability to teach. The instructor rating course was a tough one, competition for places was fierce and you had to pass a pre- course entry flight test and convince the instructor that you were more worthy than all the others who wanted that place on the course. Not like here where it seems anyone can stump up the money and get the rating even if they are completely unsuitable for the job. :ugh:

Could you please provide a reference for that?

I have exhorted the merits of this idea in PPRuNe before and had virtual rocks thrown at me from every angle. Perhaps it was the way I wrote it, but I still believe having PPLs teach PPLs would not bring about a loss in training standards provided the PPL had the experience and the qualifications to teach. Who would it be more valuable to learn from? A 1000 hour PPL with a fresh G3 IR, or a 200 hour CPL with a fresh G3 IR?

Private instructors would not be inclined to run away to the regionals or multi-engine charter companies and take all the instructing experience with them. Having young CPLs do that on a regular and predictable basis is what is causing instructing standards to slip, because they are replaced with someone of lesser experience every time. It must frustrate the CFIs too, because they have to start again every time it happens.

Bring it on!

Walrus

'gettin there, don't have a reference for it, it's a HGFA thing - Hang Gliding Federation of Australia. That goes for Hang Gliders and Trikes / Microlights. It's been around for as long as I can remember.

As for the merits of it, that's a whole other story!

I knew of 2 guys deputised by the CFI to conduct TIFs.

- The first one on his first ever TIF landed too hard and snapped off the nose wheel - no injuries.

- The second one on his first ever TIF thought it would be good to do a touch-and-go on a beach of a deserted island and rolled the trike with passenger into a ball - no injuries there either.

For those that feel passionately about this, I would suggest you write an appropriate letter to this gentleman.

I wrote a letter here for something of a similar nature and was personally responded to by phone and told that my request had gone to the highest level. I'm still yet to get a response from him, but that's another story.

Personally I think it's a great idea. There is absolutely no need for a CPL to teach for a PPL from a quality point of view, given that an instructor rating would need to be completed.


Mr. Grant Mazowita
Manager
Regulatory Development Management Branch
CASA
Reply Paid 2005
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Free fax: 1800 653 897

I agree with XXX, to a point.

I would like to see a minimum hour requirement, perhaps 250, possibly a NVFR or aerobatic endorsement. Just to ensure the new 'teacher' isn't a neophyte. I think the instructor rating should be the same though.

But otherwise I know of many many PPLs who would make brilliant instructors and a similar number of <500 hr CPLs (and instructors) I refuse to fly with.

So yes, PPL instructors :ok: