Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders
Posts made in such an intemperate form will hardly endear you to those who are prepared to give up their time in order to study your papers.
I would have hoped for reasoned debate on these topics, rather than mere bombastic rhetoric.
I would have hoped for reasoned debate on these topics, rather than mere bombastic rhetoric.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Barry, but I can't see the logic of NPPL flight instructors stopping people training abroad due to cost. FI's don't exactly get paid a fortune now and compared to fuel cost are really quite reasonable.
If you really want to make aviation more affordable, campaign for the reduction in fuel duty and the ridiculous costs of parts.
Less people are heading over to the States for training since all the new procedures foisted by the dept of Homeland security.
This all smacks of slamming the door behind the horse. If this had been an issue before sept. 11 then I can understand your position about losing students to the states. This simply isn't happening in the same way now and I for one would be horrified to see a bunch of hardly qualifed PPL's teaching at the same club as myself. Ity would certainly be a good way of destroying what professionalism that there is left in the training industry.
If this ever gets proposed, I for one would be fighting it all the way.
If you really want to make aviation more affordable, campaign for the reduction in fuel duty and the ridiculous costs of parts.
Less people are heading over to the States for training since all the new procedures foisted by the dept of Homeland security.
This all smacks of slamming the door behind the horse. If this had been an issue before sept. 11 then I can understand your position about losing students to the states. This simply isn't happening in the same way now and I for one would be horrified to see a bunch of hardly qualifed PPL's teaching at the same club as myself. Ity would certainly be a good way of destroying what professionalism that there is left in the training industry.
If this ever gets proposed, I for one would be fighting it all the way.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry/Trapper or whatever. I totally disagree with your notion that allowing less experienced/qualified instructors to instruct would reduce costs for the market thus making PPL training more attractive to the given individual.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting thread which has prompted some thoughts, which I venture to share with others. (Firstly, I apologize, as a non-instructor for venturing at all to post here!)
I originally went down the NPPL route, subsequently converting, after gaining the NPPL, to PPL and eventually adding an IMC rating. All this with the same school. I have no complaints, and nothing but praise, for the instruction given, and the attitude of all the instructors with whom I learnt.
I can see, however, a case for limited instruction (of certain categories of training) being given by, perhaps, PPL holders to NPPL students. I have in mind that the experiential aspects of the course (XC navigation practice after NST, for example, or circuit consolidation after first solo) may, under certain circumstances, be entrusted to a PPL holder. Provided, of course, that the PPL concerned had suitable attitude and experience, and that a properly qualified FI should deal with the requirements for deciding whether a student is competent to be sent solo in the circuit, or has passed the NST, etc..
Forgive me if these points have already been made ad nauseam, but, as I say, the discussion had prompted the thought.
I originally went down the NPPL route, subsequently converting, after gaining the NPPL, to PPL and eventually adding an IMC rating. All this with the same school. I have no complaints, and nothing but praise, for the instruction given, and the attitude of all the instructors with whom I learnt.
I can see, however, a case for limited instruction (of certain categories of training) being given by, perhaps, PPL holders to NPPL students. I have in mind that the experiential aspects of the course (XC navigation practice after NST, for example, or circuit consolidation after first solo) may, under certain circumstances, be entrusted to a PPL holder. Provided, of course, that the PPL concerned had suitable attitude and experience, and that a properly qualified FI should deal with the requirements for deciding whether a student is competent to be sent solo in the circuit, or has passed the NST, etc..
Forgive me if these points have already been made ad nauseam, but, as I say, the discussion had prompted the thought.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why have the added complexity of different levels of instruction, when we already have a perfectly good system at the moment?
I cannot see the logic in changing the current system. There is no shortage of FI's who have a CPL etc. why do we need more lesser qualified instructors?
What the industry really needs is to be able to cut it's costs (fuel, a/c, insurance etc.) and start paying better rates for full time professional instructors who have teaching as a career rather than a stepping stone. This would be the best route for ensuring quality instruction and keeping standards high. Not some half-baked semi pro/amateur instructor of a questionable standard which would inevitably happen if we got NPPL's teaching.
Enthusiasm is all very well, but I prefer competence any day of the week.
I cannot see the logic in changing the current system. There is no shortage of FI's who have a CPL etc. why do we need more lesser qualified instructors?
What the industry really needs is to be able to cut it's costs (fuel, a/c, insurance etc.) and start paying better rates for full time professional instructors who have teaching as a career rather than a stepping stone. This would be the best route for ensuring quality instruction and keeping standards high. Not some half-baked semi pro/amateur instructor of a questionable standard which would inevitably happen if we got NPPL's teaching.
Enthusiasm is all very well, but I prefer competence any day of the week.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SayAgainSlowly: from what I have read here so far - and other places, it appears that those who NOW want to become instructors don't want to/do not sse any incentive in paying what it costs to get the rating under the current system.
They seem to be saying: "what's the point?"
So, some of them want to lobby for change, based on an argument which clearly fails "peer review".
They seem to be saying: "what's the point?"
So, some of them want to lobby for change, based on an argument which clearly fails "peer review".
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why have the added complexity of different levels of instruction, when we already have a perfectly good system at the moment?
I cannot see the logic in changing the current system. There is no shortage of FI's who have a CPL etc. why do we need more lesser qualified instructors?
I cannot see the logic in changing the current system. There is no shortage of FI's who have a CPL etc. why do we need more lesser qualified instructors?
I speak from experience. When doing my PPL(A), I had my confidence rather thoroughly destroyed by a low hours hourbuilding instructor who didn't want to be instructing and had no people skills whatsoever. I changed instructors and stuck it out, mainly because the words "give up" aren't in my vocabulary. But it's left its mark. I've never had any confidence about my f/w flying. With helicopters it's totally different. Admittedly, I have far more experience on helicopters, but even I can see, objectively, that my f/w flying isn't all that bad. And plenty of instructors and fellow PPLs have told me so. But deep down I believe it is, and I can't get rid of that idea no matter what I do or how much time passes. Those early hours are extremely important; we all say that, but I KNOW it's true.
You could say I'm an isolated case, but I gather that's not true. Fairly early on I told the whole story in detail to several people. I gathered there were many cases like it, and that most people with similar experiences gave up flying I met one person in a similar situation who hadn't; he too had more or less permanent confidence problems.
What we need is a specific instructors' course. We need some theory, it's true, but not most of the stuff from the CPL exams - it is completely irrelevant. In its place we need instruction on how to teach, how people learn, and how to get on with people. I've worked with people most of my adult life, but the people skills of many instructors are woefully lacking. Instructing needs two sets of skills, flying and dealing with people; we concentrate on the former to the almost complete exclusion of the latter at the moment. On my instructors course we did have a few hours on ways of learning and ways of teaching...from someone who treated it all as theoretical, didn't show how it could be put into practice, and then proceeded to ignore it. Not enough, in either breadth or depth. I talked to a QHI recently who'd just come back from an instructors' seminar, where they'd learned about teaching the student rather than just teaching the syllabus, and how some people learn by hearing, some by watching, some by doing. We all need that stuff! I recently took a f/w pilot and teacher friend for a trial lesson, specifically to get some feedback from him on how to teach; not how to teach flying, but how to teach individuals! I shouldn't have to do that; I should have been taught. And I see the necessity for that; many instructors with far more experience than I have don't seem to.
How does this fit in with the NPPL? Well, for everything else we have to follow JAR. For the NPPL we could develop a specific instructor rating, with RELEVANT theory rather than the CPL exams, not with less qualified instructors but with differently qualified ones. That, as I see it, is what we need. But we won't get it while everyone shuts their eyes to the problems of the present system.
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
One last thought on this. If you are in favour of the idea, having read through the thread, and you are a member of any of the representative GA bodies like AOPA, PFA, GAPAN, BMAA or BGA then please, PLEASE write to the CEO or chairman. This to say you support the proposal. Apathy generally tends to rule in GA so get off the web and onto the PC word processing or email facility and get typing. Ever so pleeeeeeeease...........!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - I would even refund the postage in the form of a half pint should we meet. And if I am accused of bribery - so be it. I am a ruthless Yorkshire b*****d as many know already.
PPS - If on the other hand you oppose my proposal and feel the status quo - ridiculous as it is - be maintained then also write. Democracy should rule though, as above, apathy is generally prevalent in GA - we moan but do not write enough. The offer of a half pint hqwever will not apply.............!!!!!!!!!!!
PPPS - Do read the Flyer and Key Publishing forums on this to get a balanced view. At present the majority are in favour. So there.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
PS - I would even refund the postage in the form of a half pint should we meet. And if I am accused of bribery - so be it. I am a ruthless Yorkshire b*****d as many know already.
PPS - If on the other hand you oppose my proposal and feel the status quo - ridiculous as it is - be maintained then also write. Democracy should rule though, as above, apathy is generally prevalent in GA - we moan but do not write enough. The offer of a half pint hqwever will not apply.............!!!!!!!!!!!
PPPS - Do read the Flyer and Key Publishing forums on this to get a balanced view. At present the majority are in favour. So there.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confidence in flying is mainly a personal thing. Whilst the instructor can help, once you have a licence it is up to you as a pilot to understand your own capabilities and to operate the a/c according to them. Self confidence shouldn't be an issue. A realistic understanding of your capabilities is far more important.
Over confidence is far more prevalent in the PPL world and I certainly feel that limited experience and over-confidence together are a recipe for disaster.
The current system does not cause the problems we are describing here. If we could have career instructors on sensible wages, then most of the issues would be solved.
We need to tackle the root causes of problems, not just tinkering about with daft suggestions such as barely licensed people training the next generation of pilots. Is GA flying too expensive? Of course, but we won't tackle it by letting NPPL's become instructors.
G-KEST, have you actually read any of the posts here? I don't think there is any support at all for your proposals. I am a member of GAPAN, RAes and BALPA and will be strenuously lobbying against any move to lessen the standards of instruction.
If we want to decimate an already undersiege industry then these proposals may be good, but nobody really wants that. If we want to fix this industry, lets have some realistic and sensible suggestions.
Over confidence is far more prevalent in the PPL world and I certainly feel that limited experience and over-confidence together are a recipe for disaster.
The current system does not cause the problems we are describing here. If we could have career instructors on sensible wages, then most of the issues would be solved.
We need to tackle the root causes of problems, not just tinkering about with daft suggestions such as barely licensed people training the next generation of pilots. Is GA flying too expensive? Of course, but we won't tackle it by letting NPPL's become instructors.
G-KEST, have you actually read any of the posts here? I don't think there is any support at all for your proposals. I am a member of GAPAN, RAes and BALPA and will be strenuously lobbying against any move to lessen the standards of instruction.
If we want to decimate an already undersiege industry then these proposals may be good, but nobody really wants that. If we want to fix this industry, lets have some realistic and sensible suggestions.
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
BEagle - Just read your item on your perception of my intemperate nature. How very true - but very little comes from whispering in the corridors of power - I know 'cos I walked those corrdors but 6 years ago. There are three aspects of the NPPL not one where my drafts are with the NPPL SG. If all come in then we will see a vast increase in new folk coming into our FTO's.
Say again more s l o w l y - Prior to 1988 the majority of instructors were those PPL's you deride........and tthey were paid. I do not think the current crop of FI are that much better than their PPL predecessors.
Trapper 69
Say again more s l o w l y - Prior to 1988 the majority of instructors were those PPL's you deride........and tthey were paid. I do not think the current crop of FI are that much better than their PPL predecessors.
Trapper 69
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry, I deride nobody. I was no where near aviation in 1988 and so cannot comment on the standards of instructors then.
I saw nothing wrong with the BCPL instructing approach, but I feel very stongly that to teach competently you must have more knowledge than you are trying to impart.
PPL instruction is not most people's goal, the airlines are. There is very little we can do about that. I doubt that there would be sufficient people to instruct and who would be willing to put up with the derisory wages if instruction was as far as they wanted to go. Current instructors put up with it because they are after a bigger prize. Where's the draw for PPL's other than 'free' flying?
Are there any statistics that show whether instructors are better/worse or the same as they used to be?
I still think you are barking up the wrong tree if this is how you wish to reduce costs.
I saw nothing wrong with the BCPL instructing approach, but I feel very stongly that to teach competently you must have more knowledge than you are trying to impart.
PPL instruction is not most people's goal, the airlines are. There is very little we can do about that. I doubt that there would be sufficient people to instruct and who would be willing to put up with the derisory wages if instruction was as far as they wanted to go. Current instructors put up with it because they are after a bigger prize. Where's the draw for PPL's other than 'free' flying?
Are there any statistics that show whether instructors are better/worse or the same as they used to be?
I still think you are barking up the wrong tree if this is how you wish to reduce costs.
Emerging from what has been written in this thread is a growing sense of realisation that perhaps it is indeed time that the whole FI selection, training and testing system needs some re-examination.
There are those who wish to be career instructors, those who merely wish to gain an instuctional qualification in order to build up hours - and those who fall somewhere between these extremes. Not all 'hours builders' are the bored stereotypes itching for that first FO job; equally, not all 'grandfather rights' R/BCPL/FIs perhaps offer quite as much to the industry as they might think they do...
GAPAN, with the assistance of CFS, is presenting a forum for career instructors and HoTs (CFIs in JAR-speak!) at the RAF College Cranwell on 9 Mar 04. Due to the generosity of the Commandant CFS, there will be no charge for attending this. However, those wishing to fly in must have the relevant approval. Regrettably, landing charges cannot be waived for non-RAFFCA operated aircraft. If you'd like to attend, please contact the Guild on 0207 404 4032 or via e-mail at [email protected] quoting 'Cranwell Forum'. Please note that places are limited to a total of 90 and that those wishing to fly in MUST have approval from RAFC Cranwell, not GAPAN. This is a non-profit making event intended purely to benefit the future of the UK flying training industry.
There are those who wish to be career instructors, those who merely wish to gain an instuctional qualification in order to build up hours - and those who fall somewhere between these extremes. Not all 'hours builders' are the bored stereotypes itching for that first FO job; equally, not all 'grandfather rights' R/BCPL/FIs perhaps offer quite as much to the industry as they might think they do...
GAPAN, with the assistance of CFS, is presenting a forum for career instructors and HoTs (CFIs in JAR-speak!) at the RAF College Cranwell on 9 Mar 04. Due to the generosity of the Commandant CFS, there will be no charge for attending this. However, those wishing to fly in must have the relevant approval. Regrettably, landing charges cannot be waived for non-RAFFCA operated aircraft. If you'd like to attend, please contact the Guild on 0207 404 4032 or via e-mail at [email protected] quoting 'Cranwell Forum'. Please note that places are limited to a total of 90 and that those wishing to fly in MUST have approval from RAFC Cranwell, not GAPAN. This is a non-profit making event intended purely to benefit the future of the UK flying training industry.
Awesome but Affordable
Thread Starter
BEagle - I will buy you a pint, or a coffee, whichever you prefer at Cranwell - see you there. It should be an excellent day with some great exchanges of views across the FI and FIE spectrum including an OFFA member like me.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting thread and I am in agreement with a great deal of what is said, but we need to remember that you cannot turn back the clock to the good old days. G-KEST is harking back to the days when it was not compulsory to wear a seatbelt in a car, motorways barely existed, helmets were not worn on motorbikes and the whole pace of life was slower. You could land your Tiger Moth in a field to check where you were and regulations were minimal. Learning to fly in the 1950's required you to learn about 90 pages of material - now there are several thousand.
Life is different now and the skies are more crowded, everyone is concerned about Health and Safety, Duty of Care, Liability for accidents. How would you feel about letting your children learn English from a 16 year old who had just taken his GCSE? What about allowing your son to learn to drive in a friend's kit car? It is simply about progress and development and rather than try to turn back the clock I believe we have to look at ways of changing the system radically.
What we need is a different method of training instructors. It should be essential that instructors have a more in-depth teaching qualification with an emphasis on psychology and understanding people and the different ways they learn. I think an element of maturity is required and rather than allowiing people to use instructing as a route to build hours for the airlines, instructing should be looked upon as a Professional job for a person with the right character and qualifications, a career path to be followed as an alternative. There should be cross-credits available for experienced pilots with appropriate teaching experience.
How should this be funded? Well, it has long seemed anomalous that the airlines, who are the net beneficiaries of the training equation, are not responsible for the funding. There should be a training levy on all airlines who do not already fund the training of their pilots and this could provide a fund to provide salaries for the Career Instructor.
If there is a movement in favour of a more basic club instructor who could only teach PPL within the club environment, then one could instigate a grading system for instructors and schools based on the instructors' qualifications and the facilities available to the schools rather like a Good Hotel Guide system. The student would then be in a position to decide whether he wanted the cheaper basic qualified instructor or the more expensive better qualified more experienced one. After all if you go to the hairdresser you pay more for the senior stylist than the junior even though it is the same haircut, but the key is you have the choice.
I would welcome any feedback on these ideas.
Life is different now and the skies are more crowded, everyone is concerned about Health and Safety, Duty of Care, Liability for accidents. How would you feel about letting your children learn English from a 16 year old who had just taken his GCSE? What about allowing your son to learn to drive in a friend's kit car? It is simply about progress and development and rather than try to turn back the clock I believe we have to look at ways of changing the system radically.
What we need is a different method of training instructors. It should be essential that instructors have a more in-depth teaching qualification with an emphasis on psychology and understanding people and the different ways they learn. I think an element of maturity is required and rather than allowiing people to use instructing as a route to build hours for the airlines, instructing should be looked upon as a Professional job for a person with the right character and qualifications, a career path to be followed as an alternative. There should be cross-credits available for experienced pilots with appropriate teaching experience.
How should this be funded? Well, it has long seemed anomalous that the airlines, who are the net beneficiaries of the training equation, are not responsible for the funding. There should be a training levy on all airlines who do not already fund the training of their pilots and this could provide a fund to provide salaries for the Career Instructor.
If there is a movement in favour of a more basic club instructor who could only teach PPL within the club environment, then one could instigate a grading system for instructors and schools based on the instructors' qualifications and the facilities available to the schools rather like a Good Hotel Guide system. The student would then be in a position to decide whether he wanted the cheaper basic qualified instructor or the more expensive better qualified more experienced one. After all if you go to the hairdresser you pay more for the senior stylist than the junior even though it is the same haircut, but the key is you have the choice.
I would welcome any feedback on these ideas.
Welcome to PPRuNe, lady in red...
I'm not sure about the 'grading' idea, but will happily debate any sensible proposal. Regrettably, market forces might drive schools down the route of employing the cheapest, lowest qualified FIs?
I do, however, think that the upgrade from FI(R) to FI should include some form of test rather than just the 100/25 plus sign-off? Should FI(R)s be permitted to re-validate by test only - and only FIs be given the '2 out of 3' re-validation option, perhaps? (Notwithstanding the post-03 requirements).
There is a 'sort of' 3-tier grading at the moment anyway:
FI(R)
FI
FI without IF and Night restrictions
Finally, I shall have to take your word over the hairdressing parallel - my brief trips to the local snipper involve little more than a short back and polish!
I'm not sure about the 'grading' idea, but will happily debate any sensible proposal. Regrettably, market forces might drive schools down the route of employing the cheapest, lowest qualified FIs?
I do, however, think that the upgrade from FI(R) to FI should include some form of test rather than just the 100/25 plus sign-off? Should FI(R)s be permitted to re-validate by test only - and only FIs be given the '2 out of 3' re-validation option, perhaps? (Notwithstanding the post-03 requirements).
There is a 'sort of' 3-tier grading at the moment anyway:
FI(R)
FI
FI without IF and Night restrictions
Finally, I shall have to take your word over the hairdressing parallel - my brief trips to the local snipper involve little more than a short back and polish!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noted your comments BEagle. There may be a three tier system but unfortunately the employers do not seem to take account of the expense involved in removing each restriction as there is no discernible differential in remuneration - in fact where I work there has been no pay rise in 5 years and if we ask for one, we are told that there is a long queue of people waiting to take our jobs for less money! Surely extra qualifications and extra experience should attract higher reward?It does in all other professions
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: England
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the point of charging airlines a training levy, it would be interesting to look at some parallels (please bear with me):
1) Reasons why people learn to fly
2) Reasons why people set up a FTO
3) Reasons why people set up an air transport business
4) Reasons why people set up an Aviation Repair shop
5) Reasons (!) why the regulating body regulates any of above
1) Pleasure, aim to become airline/transport pilot
I don't understand the concept of anyone learning to fly so that
one day they will become an instructor.
2) Hmm, apart from the likes of CSE etc. where there is commercial
demand from time to time there seems to be very little money in it
for the typical "portakabin" club operation.
3) There is money in it (purely from a business perspective).
4) There is money in it (purely from a business perspective).
5) Obvious safety issues but the regulation itself imposes financial
burden on 1-4
We can see some market forces in this "little world":
The people in (1) depend on their financial provision to at least try for their goal.
The people in (2) "feed" on people in (1).
(3) depends on the output of (2).
(4) depends on the output of both (2) and (3).
It is interesting that (5) will control the efficiency of 2-4
and force a market change way beyond reasons of safety regulation.
We know that qualified pilots for (3) can be sourced from anywhere in the world so there isn't necessarily an interest in this
group to pay a levy or for that matter for government to intervene.
1) Reasons why people learn to fly
2) Reasons why people set up a FTO
3) Reasons why people set up an air transport business
4) Reasons why people set up an Aviation Repair shop
5) Reasons (!) why the regulating body regulates any of above
1) Pleasure, aim to become airline/transport pilot
I don't understand the concept of anyone learning to fly so that
one day they will become an instructor.
2) Hmm, apart from the likes of CSE etc. where there is commercial
demand from time to time there seems to be very little money in it
for the typical "portakabin" club operation.
3) There is money in it (purely from a business perspective).
4) There is money in it (purely from a business perspective).
5) Obvious safety issues but the regulation itself imposes financial
burden on 1-4
We can see some market forces in this "little world":
The people in (1) depend on their financial provision to at least try for their goal.
The people in (2) "feed" on people in (1).
(3) depends on the output of (2).
(4) depends on the output of both (2) and (3).
It is interesting that (5) will control the efficiency of 2-4
and force a market change way beyond reasons of safety regulation.
We know that qualified pilots for (3) can be sourced from anywhere in the world so there isn't necessarily an interest in this
group to pay a levy or for that matter for government to intervene.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sas, I quite agree that the requirement for the industry is to reduce costs, and to pass on that reduction to the customer.
I did not suggest that NPPLs (after their minimum 32 hrs) should take the place of more experienced instructors. (To be honest, after my NPPL I hardly felt confident enough to be in an aircraft on my own, let alone 'assisting' anyone else. Now I have some experience following PPL/IMC, I feel a little more confident, to the extent of feeling happy to accompany other PPLs and to contribute where invited. I would need a lot more experience before I would feel happy to make recommendations to a peer, let alone aspire to instruct.)
As a means to reduce costs, the suggestions on this thread do seem to merit proper examination. I hope that that consideration will take place soon: whichever way the argument goes, the airing of the ideas will represent a step forward in making the industry relevant to today's circumstances.
I did not suggest that NPPLs (after their minimum 32 hrs) should take the place of more experienced instructors. (To be honest, after my NPPL I hardly felt confident enough to be in an aircraft on my own, let alone 'assisting' anyone else. Now I have some experience following PPL/IMC, I feel a little more confident, to the extent of feeling happy to accompany other PPLs and to contribute where invited. I would need a lot more experience before I would feel happy to make recommendations to a peer, let alone aspire to instruct.)
As a means to reduce costs, the suggestions on this thread do seem to merit proper examination. I hope that that consideration will take place soon: whichever way the argument goes, the airing of the ideas will represent a step forward in making the industry relevant to today's circumstances.