Teaching On A PPL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teaching On A PPL
I seem to remember that an instructor once mentioned to me that is was possible for a PPL to teach somebody to fly as long as is was for free.
Does anybody have any experience or know the rules?
Can I log the hours as P1 & the student log the hours as P U/T
Does anybody have any experience or know the rules?
Can I log the hours as P1 & the student log the hours as P U/T
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you would have to have the required hours (250 for heli, not sure about fixed wing) and complete the CPL theory exams plus FI course. Even then, I think you could only be an FI(R).
Not sure that would give you any advantage.
Cheers
Whirls
Not sure that would give you any advantage.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I am wrong, anybody), the 'teach for free' concept is applicable if you have just a PPL and an Instructor's Rating, albeit without holding a Commercial Pilot's Licence which is required if you are to fly for reward.
I also believe that you may charge your 'student' anything up to half of the price of the cost of that flight under CAA regulations - cannot remember the section but that which states that each pilot/passenger on a Private flight (or instructional without a CPL) may pay up to his share of the cost.
Hope this answers your question,
Jack.
I also believe that you may charge your 'student' anything up to half of the price of the cost of that flight under CAA regulations - cannot remember the section but that which states that each pilot/passenger on a Private flight (or instructional without a CPL) may pay up to his share of the cost.
Hope this answers your question,
Jack.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's nothing I've found anywhere that says you can't teach your granny to fly if you want to. The problem is none of it counts towards license requirements unless you have an FI rating.
If you have a PPL with an FI rating you can teach to PPL standard. Full stop, end of story.
If however you want to be paid it then becomes Aerial Work (unless it's a Microlight or SLMG) for which you need a professional license. And of course if you have a professional license you need a Class 1 medical to go with it. This has sweet fanny adams to do with the fact that you are instructing. It is simply to do with the fact you are being paid.
The exemption for Microlight & SLMG instruction is in the licence privileges in the ANO.
There are additional exemptions that allow you to do Aerial Work in the form of Glider Tugging and Parachute Dropping these are in the "Public Transport and Aerial Work" section.
Given that instruction is given in benign conditions (students don't fly in bad weather) I don't see any reason why there should not be a similar exemption for instruction. The instruction is equally valid if given by a CPL or a PPL so what's the point of the CPL requirement? The notion that the paid instructor needs a Class 1 to ensure that he won't overstrain himself carrying the loot to the bank is laughable.
It would be a great benefit to all to simply make an exemption. It would reduce costs and encourage PPLs who want to instruct to do so because they would be able to recover the cost of obtaining and maintaining their FI rating.
It would defer entry on to the CPL course for those wanting a career in commercial aviation. When they eventually went for the CPL/ATPL they would be more experienced with the extra hours under their belt and get more benefit from the course, and it would do away with the situtation where their expensively earned multi & IR's lapse while they are still building up experience. They could arrive at their interview with freshly minted ratings.
It would give the FTO's reduced costs and less staff turnover.
It would force the hours-builder to raise his game to meet the competition from PPL/FI.
It would reduce the cost of learning to fly because the student would not be forced to meet the cost of the CPL and Class 1 held by the instructor.
Mike
If you have a PPL with an FI rating you can teach to PPL standard. Full stop, end of story.
If however you want to be paid it then becomes Aerial Work (unless it's a Microlight or SLMG) for which you need a professional license. And of course if you have a professional license you need a Class 1 medical to go with it. This has sweet fanny adams to do with the fact that you are instructing. It is simply to do with the fact you are being paid.
The exemption for Microlight & SLMG instruction is in the licence privileges in the ANO.
There are additional exemptions that allow you to do Aerial Work in the form of Glider Tugging and Parachute Dropping these are in the "Public Transport and Aerial Work" section.
Given that instruction is given in benign conditions (students don't fly in bad weather) I don't see any reason why there should not be a similar exemption for instruction. The instruction is equally valid if given by a CPL or a PPL so what's the point of the CPL requirement? The notion that the paid instructor needs a Class 1 to ensure that he won't overstrain himself carrying the loot to the bank is laughable.
It would be a great benefit to all to simply make an exemption. It would reduce costs and encourage PPLs who want to instruct to do so because they would be able to recover the cost of obtaining and maintaining their FI rating.
It would defer entry on to the CPL course for those wanting a career in commercial aviation. When they eventually went for the CPL/ATPL they would be more experienced with the extra hours under their belt and get more benefit from the course, and it would do away with the situtation where their expensively earned multi & IR's lapse while they are still building up experience. They could arrive at their interview with freshly minted ratings.
It would give the FTO's reduced costs and less staff turnover.
It would force the hours-builder to raise his game to meet the competition from PPL/FI.
It would reduce the cost of learning to fly because the student would not be forced to meet the cost of the CPL and Class 1 held by the instructor.
Mike
To instruct for the PPL whilst holding a PPL on SEP Class aeroplanes, you will need:
1. To have passed the CPL exams.
2. To hold a FI Rating.
3. To work at an RF from a licensed or government aerodrome.
Some of this may change; in particular the requirements to have passed the CPL exams and to work from a licensed or government aerodrome. But not for some years, I would guess.
PPL, then experience, then FI Rating, then instructional expereince.....and then CPL and IR is the way ahead as Mike says. But tit can't be done with just an exemption, there would need to be an ANO change.
1. To have passed the CPL exams.
2. To hold a FI Rating.
3. To work at an RF from a licensed or government aerodrome.
Some of this may change; in particular the requirements to have passed the CPL exams and to work from a licensed or government aerodrome. But not for some years, I would guess.
PPL, then experience, then FI Rating, then instructional expereince.....and then CPL and IR is the way ahead as Mike says. But tit can't be done with just an exemption, there would need to be an ANO change.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the only way to understand a lot of these apparently silly restrictions (like having to sit the massive ATPL ground school, just to be able to be a paid PPL instructor) is that they are in place to keep a lid on what the CAA sees as rogue operators.
If you make something more difficult, there will be fewer people doing it; it doesn't matter that the extra difficulty is not connected with the actual requirements of the job!
If you make something more difficult, there will be fewer people doing it; it doesn't matter that the extra difficulty is not connected with the actual requirements of the job!
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like having to sit the massive ATPL ground school, just to be able to be a paid PPL instructor
A instructor holding a PPL only cannot be paid (unless they are one of the few left who still have the grandfather rights from the olden days of CAA).
You do not have to sit the 14 ATPL exams; you can sit the 9 CPL exams.
Whilst the old CAA system (as noted by BEags and Mike) was much simpler, there is no advantage to going that route at the moment.
Using helicopter requirements ('cos that's all I know but fixed wings is similar), one must build one's hours up to 250 in order to be able to take an FI course. In the meantime, one must pass 9 (or 14) exams. However, at 155 hours, one is eligible to take a commercial flight course thereby gaining a CPL. Since the hours for the CPL count towards the 250 for the instructors course, one might as well do the CPL (the only difference in cost would be the dual hours with an instructor and licence issue) and then you could be paid.
However, I do think that if one can only get a Class 2 medical, then one can instruct without renumeration on a PPL.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
instructor holding a PPL only cannot be paid (unless they are one of the few left who still have the grandfather rights from the olden days of CAA).
Didn't all those get a honorary BCPL, enabling them to receive money?
Another nugget (not sure if it's true) is that such an instructor, having got his BCPL, now has a "CPL" for the purpose of having an IMC Rating (every UK - not JAA - CPL or ATPL has automatic IMCR privileges) so he can teach the IMCR without ever had any instrument training himself. I am pretty sure I had one such instructor - he had never held more than a PPL.
Instructors can make money - it comes down to utilisation. In Arizona they get to fly 8 hours a day. They could fly 16 hours a day but would be even more knackered than they are already. The problem is the UK weather, and far too few students for the # of schools (or the # of instructors in a given school).
Didn't all those get a honorary BCPL, enabling them to receive money?
Another nugget (not sure if it's true) is that such an instructor, having got his BCPL, now has a "CPL" for the purpose of having an IMC Rating (every UK - not JAA - CPL or ATPL has automatic IMCR privileges) so he can teach the IMCR without ever had any instrument training himself. I am pretty sure I had one such instructor - he had never held more than a PPL.
Instructors can make money - it comes down to utilisation. In Arizona they get to fly 8 hours a day. They could fly 16 hours a day but would be even more knackered than they are already. The problem is the UK weather, and far too few students for the # of schools (or the # of instructors in a given school).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No!!!
Robinpiper,
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the answer is a flat and simple "NO". Don't know about the rest of the world.
FAR Part 61 defines the requirements for 'learning to fly'. Many of the requirements for a 'student' cannot be met without a Certified Flight Instructor.
Now, having said that...you, yourself, as a private pilot, can take a friend along with you on a flight...and 'teach' some things about flying...but, as far as the FAA is concerned, your friend is not officially being 'instructed'.
Any FAA FSDO office can answer any of your questions.
PantLoad
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the answer is a flat and simple "NO". Don't know about the rest of the world.
FAR Part 61 defines the requirements for 'learning to fly'. Many of the requirements for a 'student' cannot be met without a Certified Flight Instructor.
Now, having said that...you, yourself, as a private pilot, can take a friend along with you on a flight...and 'teach' some things about flying...but, as far as the FAA is concerned, your friend is not officially being 'instructed'.
Any FAA FSDO office can answer any of your questions.
PantLoad
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's nothing I've found anywhere that says you can't teach your granny to fly if you want to. The problem is none of it counts towards license requirements unless you have an FI rating.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how. The insurance company won't know anything about it, and in a dual-control plane the PIC can sit on either side, so the position of the two bodies in the wreckage won't reveal anything 
Personally I wouldn't do it without disclosure to the insurer however, because if there was an incident and the "student" was injured, and his lawyer found out that going after the pilot for negligence will result in a bigger payout, then has an incentive to at best spill the beans and at worst tell a few lies. One cannot rely on "friends" in a situation like that. Might backfire though, because of the insurance was voided he won't get anything at all, short of driving the "instructor" into bankrupcy.
Personally I wouldn't do it without disclosure to the insurer however, because if there was an incident and the "student" was injured, and his lawyer found out that going after the pilot for negligence will result in a bigger payout, then has an incentive to at best spill the beans and at worst tell a few lies. One cannot rely on "friends" in a situation like that. Might backfire though, because of the insurance was voided he won't get anything at all, short of driving the "instructor" into bankrupcy.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh? On the one hand IO540, you've said that you can't see how the insurance is invalidated and, on the other, you've described a situation where it could.
Insurance MAY be invalid in the event of accident. Not all policies will cover instruction. Whether the insurance company finds out who was in control at the time is irrelevant; it MAY be against the terms of the policy.
Cheers
Whirls
Insurance MAY be invalid in the event of accident. Not all policies will cover instruction. Whether the insurance company finds out who was in control at the time is irrelevant; it MAY be against the terms of the policy.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
Another nugget (not sure if it's true) is that such an instructor, having got his BCPL, now has a "CPL" for the purpose of having an IMC Rating (every UK - not JAA - CPL or ATPL has automatic IMCR privileges) so he can teach the IMCR without ever had any instrument training himself. I am pretty sure I had one such instructor - he had never held more than a PPL
It's not true. Anyone who qualified under the 'old' rules would have needed an IMC rating to have the AFI rating issued.
Another nugget (not sure if it's true) is that such an instructor, having got his BCPL, now has a "CPL" for the purpose of having an IMC Rating (every UK - not JAA - CPL or ATPL has automatic IMCR privileges) so he can teach the IMCR without ever had any instrument training himself. I am pretty sure I had one such instructor - he had never held more than a PPL
It's not true. Anyone who qualified under the 'old' rules would have needed an IMC rating to have the AFI rating issued.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlygig
Why is a paid PPL an oxymoron?
If I'm paid to teach someone to sail or to drive a motor boat I don't need a Master's ticket, nor does the vessel need to be licensed for Public Transport as a Passenger Carrying Vessel.
If I'm paid as a Driving Instructor I don't need a PSV licence and the car doesn't need to be plated as a commercial vehicle.
I can be paid to drop parachutists or tow gliders with a PPL so why do you think it's an oxymoron to be paid to instruct?
The answer is in the "purpose of the flight" as the ANO puts it. Public Transport requirements (be they land sea or air) exist to protect the fare paying passenger on a public transport undertaking. PPL instruction is not such an undertaking.
Why not go the whole hog and get a CPL? Well how much does the CPL course cost and why spend it if you have no need of it? How much does it cost to maintain a Class 1 instead of a Class 2?
And do you not concede that it would be beneficial for the aspiring CPL/ATPL to defer the expenditure, i.e. do the FI rating at 200 Hrs and then do the CPL/ATPL when he/she needs it and will gain greater benefit as a result of being more experienced.
There's a lot of dogma in this argument I'd sooner see a good case than dogma. Show me the difference in validity between:-
1. Instruction given by a PPL/FI
and
2. Instruction given by a CPL/FI
Beagle
While a change to the ANO would eventually be required it could be done pro-tem by publishing an exemption, as done in AIC White 128 and AIC White 125
Quite why some exemptions are in the ANO, some are in the License priveliges, and some are in AIC's is a bit of a mystery to me. I suppose it gives the legal branch something to do.
Mike
Why is a paid PPL an oxymoron?
If I'm paid to teach someone to sail or to drive a motor boat I don't need a Master's ticket, nor does the vessel need to be licensed for Public Transport as a Passenger Carrying Vessel.
If I'm paid as a Driving Instructor I don't need a PSV licence and the car doesn't need to be plated as a commercial vehicle.
I can be paid to drop parachutists or tow gliders with a PPL so why do you think it's an oxymoron to be paid to instruct?
The answer is in the "purpose of the flight" as the ANO puts it. Public Transport requirements (be they land sea or air) exist to protect the fare paying passenger on a public transport undertaking. PPL instruction is not such an undertaking.
Why not go the whole hog and get a CPL? Well how much does the CPL course cost and why spend it if you have no need of it? How much does it cost to maintain a Class 1 instead of a Class 2?
And do you not concede that it would be beneficial for the aspiring CPL/ATPL to defer the expenditure, i.e. do the FI rating at 200 Hrs and then do the CPL/ATPL when he/she needs it and will gain greater benefit as a result of being more experienced.
There's a lot of dogma in this argument I'd sooner see a good case than dogma. Show me the difference in validity between:-
1. Instruction given by a PPL/FI
and
2. Instruction given by a CPL/FI
Beagle
While a change to the ANO would eventually be required it could be done pro-tem by publishing an exemption, as done in AIC White 128 and AIC White 125
Quite why some exemptions are in the ANO, some are in the License priveliges, and some are in AIC's is a bit of a mystery to me. I suppose it gives the legal branch something to do.
Mike
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe that you may charge your 'student' anything up to half of the price of the cost of that flight under CAA regulations
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Cross, my understanding is that (apart from the few who have the old rights conferred on them by the CAA) a PPL holder cannot accept remuneration for instructing, or anything else. Now when somebody refers to a "paid PPL instructor" it is not entirely clear whether they are referring to a instructor who teaches to PPL standard or an instructor whose qualification is PPL! I took it to be the latter.
I am not disagreeing with you in what should be the case and what is fair but, under the current rules, I cannot see the point of going straight from PPL to FI without doing the CPL flight course in between. The difference in cost would be the cost of an instructor for the CPL course (given that you would have to pay for self fly hire for hour building to whatever hours are required for an instructor rating). The exams still have to be written.
However, if you are to be paid as a driving instructor you should have a PDI or ADI licence!!!
Cheers
Whirls
I am not disagreeing with you in what should be the case and what is fair but, under the current rules, I cannot see the point of going straight from PPL to FI without doing the CPL flight course in between. The difference in cost would be the cost of an instructor for the CPL course (given that you would have to pay for self fly hire for hour building to whatever hours are required for an instructor rating). The exams still have to be written.
However, if you are to be paid as a driving instructor you should have a PDI or ADI licence!!!
Cheers
Whirls