New instructor rating?
New instructor rating?
Nice to hear that the CAA has finally recognised the shortage of instructors in the UK and is proposing to do something about it. Apparently they are looking at introducing a Simple Single Engine Aeroplane Instructor Rating, which would remove the requirement for a CPL. 
However, according to the article (here) the CAA can only approve it for the NPPL; the JAR PPL will require EASA approval and one can only guess how long that will take...
However, according to the article (here) the CAA can only approve it for the NPPL; the JAR PPL will require EASA approval and one can only guess how long that will take...
the CAA can only approve it for the NPPL; the JAR PPL will require EASA approval and one can only guess how long that will take
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Isle 6, Dairy produce
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are they getting the idea of a shortage from? Midlands has too many at present imo.
Nice to see nobody is offering slightly inflated pay to attract new employees - can't be that bad yet.
Nice to see nobody is offering slightly inflated pay to attract new employees - can't be that bad yet.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was looking into becoming an instructor and this was one angle of obvious interest . I have done some digging but the general consensus is that it wont be an option anytime soon , I have yet to see any info to the contrary. However if anyone can provide some gen as to a time scale and possible implementation dates for this I would be interested, Although I feel that the CPL/FI(R) is still going to be the way to go I find it interesting that the new instructors would only be able to teach for the nppl . As Whopity says it is not exactly a sought after qual . From the instructors here , I am aware that the Nppl has a lower hourly requirment than the PPL but what exactly is taken out of the PPL syllabus that a new instructor would not be able to teach as part of a PPL course , if you catch my drift . At the end of the day an NPPL student still has to learn to aviate ,navigate, communicate . Or doesnt he/she?????
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500+ hours on an old CAA or new JAR PPL and you should be entitled to take the FIC and be paid as an instructor IMHO.
A SSEA FI rating for NPPL training only will be as much use to yer average FTO as a pair of sunglasses on a bloke wiv one ear...........
VFE.
A SSEA FI rating for NPPL training only will be as much use to yer average FTO as a pair of sunglasses on a bloke wiv one ear...........
VFE.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, when I left the UK for Australia back in the mid 80's, you didn't need a CPL to instruct, there was a special 'Basic Commercial Pilots Licence' (BCPL), that was good only for instruction and (I think) Ag work. I assume that this went west with the whole 'Eurocracy' nonsense? So, what goes around comes around eh....
Yes, the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee have indeed formed a FI (SSEA) sub working group and the initial recommendations have been circulated to the CAA.
The SWG will be working in concert with the MDM032 EASA group to ensure that the requirements for the forthcoming European Light Aircraft Pilot Licence Flight Instructor are encompassed by the FI (SSEA) proposals.
The aim is to make the flight instructor rating more readily attainable by experienced PPL holders, not to attract inexperienced minimum-time wannabe airline pilots.
Lack of ab-initio NPPL SSEA applicants is entirely down to poor marketing by industry. They said they wanted the NPPL, but are doing little to promote it as they can extract more money from a JAR-FCL PPL trainee....
The SWG will be working in concert with the MDM032 EASA group to ensure that the requirements for the forthcoming European Light Aircraft Pilot Licence Flight Instructor are encompassed by the FI (SSEA) proposals.
The aim is to make the flight instructor rating more readily attainable by experienced PPL holders, not to attract inexperienced minimum-time wannabe airline pilots.
Lack of ab-initio NPPL SSEA applicants is entirely down to poor marketing by industry. They said they wanted the NPPL, but are doing little to promote it as they can extract more money from a JAR-FCL PPL trainee....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still doesnt sound like an imminent thingy does it . Out of interest what are we considering the transition level between inexperienced PPL holders and Experienced ? Any thoughts?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK, right of centre
Age: 52
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can an NPPL student change his mind towards the end of the course and decide to finish a JAR PPL? If so, does the training he did with an instructor only able to teach NPPl count? If the answer is yes then this could be useful......
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, the lack of take up is nothing to do with the industry providing poor marketing. It is simply a case of it being a waste of time unless there is a medical reason why you can't get a JAR PPL.
The reduced hours is irrelevant as how many complete the PPL in 45 hours? Very few apart from youngsters going for flying as a career and what use is an NPPL to them? None.
So why go for an NPPL in the first place? I struggle to think of a reason why anyone would. If I can't think of one, then why would a student, especially as it limits what they may want to do in the future.
I personally don't think it serves any purpose at all apart from allowing people who cannot pass a class 2 medical to get airborne. Is that a good thing? Probably, but it does make a mockery of having a medical in the first place.
If people really want to help flying in the UK, stop mucking about with licences and lobby to have the tax taken off AVGAS. That'll make a much bigger difference.
The reduced hours is irrelevant as how many complete the PPL in 45 hours? Very few apart from youngsters going for flying as a career and what use is an NPPL to them? None.
So why go for an NPPL in the first place? I struggle to think of a reason why anyone would. If I can't think of one, then why would a student, especially as it limits what they may want to do in the future.
I personally don't think it serves any purpose at all apart from allowing people who cannot pass a class 2 medical to get airborne. Is that a good thing? Probably, but it does make a mockery of having a medical in the first place.
If people really want to help flying in the UK, stop mucking about with licences and lobby to have the tax taken off AVGAS. That'll make a much bigger difference.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Front of Beyond
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About time.
Beagle - do you know if there any plans to reduce the requirement to hold a Class 1 medical? My eyesight isn't quite good enough to get a Class 1, so I've never been able to go the CPL/FI route.
Brooklands
Beagle - do you know if there any plans to reduce the requirement to hold a Class 1 medical? My eyesight isn't quite good enough to get a Class 1, so I've never been able to go the CPL/FI route.
Brooklands
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ENGLAND, BUT IN ASIA NOW
Age: 34
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this is my total opinon. I don't think just a normal PPL can take the job of a flight instructor without extra training, as they won't have the experience or knowledge to answer some really smart students. Say a student put the aircraft into a spin, an inexperienced PPL holder wouldn't be able to kick opposite rudder and do the rest of the procedures like bread and butter. Mainly I think that an instructor would need the ATPL theory knowledge to answer any question that is fired at them, and situationally aware of factors that may go wrong, and also upto a CPL experienced standard. Some may disagree with me, but I guess its my only opinion.
Brian304
Brian304
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL instructors with no CPL worked quite happily for many many years. It is only in the last 6 years or so that the need for CPL knowledge to do an FI course has been a requirement. Yet another example of what joining the EC has cost us!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the best of my knowledge a CPL or higher is NOT required in order to instruct.
There is a requirement in JAR for the applicant to demonstrate a knowledge of CPL theory, which the CAA has taken as meaning he/she should pass the theory exam. The simple insertion of the word "relevant parts" in the appropriate JAR and for the knowledge to be assessed as part of the FI course rather than as a separate full CPL theory exam would be a great improvement. (of course you don't even need to do this for the NPPL because it's not a JAA license)
An exemption, similar to that which exists for Microlight Instructors would allow a PPL/FI to be remunerated.
I'm worried by the multiplicity of new stuff being proposed. The danger is that everything gets fragmented. The instructional skills required to teach someone to fly to PPL standard (whether it's PPL, PPL(M) or NPPL) are similar and don't justify a different rating.
Why are we inventing something new rather than fixing the problems with what we've got?
JAR have a simple and easily understood requirement, the instructor must hold a license at least equivalent to that for which the instruction is being given. If you simple extend that principle then and NPPL FI could only instruct to NPPL level and a PPL FI could instruct to NPPL or PPL level. If you fix the remuneration and CPL theory requirements what else is needed?
There is a requirement in JAR for the applicant to demonstrate a knowledge of CPL theory, which the CAA has taken as meaning he/she should pass the theory exam. The simple insertion of the word "relevant parts" in the appropriate JAR and for the knowledge to be assessed as part of the FI course rather than as a separate full CPL theory exam would be a great improvement. (of course you don't even need to do this for the NPPL because it's not a JAA license)
An exemption, similar to that which exists for Microlight Instructors would allow a PPL/FI to be remunerated.
I'm worried by the multiplicity of new stuff being proposed. The danger is that everything gets fragmented. The instructional skills required to teach someone to fly to PPL standard (whether it's PPL, PPL(M) or NPPL) are similar and don't justify a different rating.
Why are we inventing something new rather than fixing the problems with what we've got?
JAR have a simple and easily understood requirement, the instructor must hold a license at least equivalent to that for which the instruction is being given. If you simple extend that principle then and NPPL FI could only instruct to NPPL level and a PPL FI could instruct to NPPL or PPL level. If you fix the remuneration and CPL theory requirements what else is needed?
The requirement for CPL level knowledge for a FI has been an ICAO requirement, probably dating back to the 1940s. The UK chose to ignore it, probably because we ran a Flying Instructor Course based upon the RAF training system, thanks to Ron Campbell. This was accepted at the time as meeting the CPL theory requirement.
Europe has followed the ICAO line so we now have CPL level theory and a beefed up FI course . In the USA the FI course doesn't exist and never has. Now that the JAA has dissolved and EASA governs in Europe, the CAA has no remit to change anything:
unfortunately, there is no foundation for this statement, as they are no longer in charge!
Europe has followed the ICAO line so we now have CPL level theory and a beefed up FI course . In the USA the FI course doesn't exist and never has. Now that the JAA has dissolved and EASA governs in Europe, the CAA has no remit to change anything:
Nice to hear that the CAA has finally recognised the shortage of instructors in the UK and is proposing to do something about it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say a student put the aircraft into a spin, an inexperienced PPL holder wouldn't be able to kick opposite rudder and do the rest of the procedures like bread and butter. Mainly I think that an instructor would need the ATPL theory knowledge to answer any question that is fired at them, and situationally aware of factors that may go wrong, and also upto a CPL experienced standard. Some may disagree with me, but I guess its my only opinion.
Can agree with the knowledge part (although, when you're taking someone to do straight and level they won't ask you about jet engines or procedural approaches) but the handling, I think that's got to do more with your experience that your ratings.
If car drivers had a logbook, who would you let drive your brand new BMW ? An 18 years old driving instructor or someone with 10 years no claim driving experience ?
Ta
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware spin training and instruction forms part of the FI Course anyway . There are also many ppls who complete aopa aeros courses etc etc .This would give them far more experience in this sort of thing than your average integrated type who just does one session of spinning during their course, colour of licence does not necessarily assume experience .
