Instructor ratings for PPL/NPPL licence holders
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well ... back to the Frost report sketch then 
... I'll just toddle off back to the PPL forum and leave you to your brave new world
SS
Beagle ... our postings collided
Nice idea and just the kind of thing I'd like to see ... doesn't stand a hope of course, far too sensible!
Bye all
SS
... I'll just toddle off back to the PPL forum and leave you to your brave new world
SS
Beagle ... our postings collided
Nice idea and just the kind of thing I'd like to see ... doesn't stand a hope of course, far too sensible!
Bye all
SS
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have yet to see anyone come up with any significant proposal that can't already be done under JAR-FCL.
There is absolutely no reason why the CPL exams provided via the modular route could not have their mandatory classroom and refresher time completed on Saturdays only. Simply nobody has bothered to do it because the only providers of the ground training are doing it for professional pilots who are instructed by professional instructors who want the weekend off.
Of course, a saturday only route would take much longer but what PPLs are in a big rush to do PPL flying.
What must be remembered is that currently there is an upgrade from NPPL to JAA PPL available provided allt he instruction provided was in accordance with JAR-FCL. Receiving instruction from an NPPL instructor not only restricts the NPPL holder to the UK but does so forever unless they repeat the whole PPL course with a JAA instructor............try selling that to the young pilots of today!
-----
SAS,
I am very willing to pay for a plumber who is a professional and for whom plumbing is their livliehood. I am not willing to pay a similar rate to the Scout Master for leading my child's scout group....they are doing what is essentially a hobby and a recreational activity. That is not to say that the Scout Master is not very professional, reliable and good at what they do. So too are the other unpaid volunteers who assist him.
Unpaid NPPL club instructors in a volunteer not for profit club will have no impact on today's professional instructors because they will have totally separate and unrelated customer pools. As I said above, no one in their right mind will pay thousands for a restricted licence that costs twice as much to "upgrade".
---
BEagle,
Agree totally that all instructors (even NPPL ones) must be able to fly accurately and confidently prior to completing the course. However, why do they need to be capable of IF flying when the licence they hold and want to teach for prohibits such flying and has no criteria for the lifting of that restriction.
---
There is one piece of irony in the JAR-FCL requirement regarding instructor knowledge. To teah for the PPL one needs CPL knowledge. To teach for the CPL one needs CPL knowledge. To teach for the ATPL, one needs ATPL knowledge.
Why is it that the PPL is the only licence wher the teacher must have knowledge at a higher level despite it being the least significant licence?
Could it be that JAR-FCL could not come up with any other agreeable criteria when the original draft was circulated?
Perhaps insted of wasting time and effort on the NPPL instructor rating some committee could formulate an amendment proposal for the JAA to rectify that situation. If that had been dome 3 years ago, we could have a simpler route to PPL instructors today and this whole long thred would not exist.
Regards,
DFC
There is absolutely no reason why the CPL exams provided via the modular route could not have their mandatory classroom and refresher time completed on Saturdays only. Simply nobody has bothered to do it because the only providers of the ground training are doing it for professional pilots who are instructed by professional instructors who want the weekend off.
Of course, a saturday only route would take much longer but what PPLs are in a big rush to do PPL flying.
What must be remembered is that currently there is an upgrade from NPPL to JAA PPL available provided allt he instruction provided was in accordance with JAR-FCL. Receiving instruction from an NPPL instructor not only restricts the NPPL holder to the UK but does so forever unless they repeat the whole PPL course with a JAA instructor............try selling that to the young pilots of today!
-----
SAS,
I am very willing to pay for a plumber who is a professional and for whom plumbing is their livliehood. I am not willing to pay a similar rate to the Scout Master for leading my child's scout group....they are doing what is essentially a hobby and a recreational activity. That is not to say that the Scout Master is not very professional, reliable and good at what they do. So too are the other unpaid volunteers who assist him.
Unpaid NPPL club instructors in a volunteer not for profit club will have no impact on today's professional instructors because they will have totally separate and unrelated customer pools. As I said above, no one in their right mind will pay thousands for a restricted licence that costs twice as much to "upgrade".
---
BEagle,
Agree totally that all instructors (even NPPL ones) must be able to fly accurately and confidently prior to completing the course. However, why do they need to be capable of IF flying when the licence they hold and want to teach for prohibits such flying and has no criteria for the lifting of that restriction.
---
There is one piece of irony in the JAR-FCL requirement regarding instructor knowledge. To teah for the PPL one needs CPL knowledge. To teach for the CPL one needs CPL knowledge. To teach for the ATPL, one needs ATPL knowledge.
Why is it that the PPL is the only licence wher the teacher must have knowledge at a higher level despite it being the least significant licence?
Could it be that JAR-FCL could not come up with any other agreeable criteria when the original draft was circulated?
Perhaps insted of wasting time and effort on the NPPL instructor rating some committee could formulate an amendment proposal for the JAA to rectify that situation. If that had been dome 3 years ago, we could have a simpler route to PPL instructors today and this whole long thred would not exist.
Regards,
DFC
Because, DFC, there is some IF instruction required for both the NPPL and PPL. If the person wanting a 'professional instructor licence' holds a NPPL only, then upgrade to JAR-FCL PPL with IMC rating should form part of the 'all-in' course.
I've even heard of current FIs with a 'no IF instruction' restriction applying to be FEs. That should, in my view, never be allowed.
I've even heard of current FIs with a 'no IF instruction' restriction applying to be FEs. That should, in my view, never be allowed.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, are you seriously suggesting that instructing is on par with being a scout master?
Does running a scout group need specific qualifications that take vast amounts of time and money to complete?
Just because I have been lucky enough to find a job that I love to do, doesn't mean that I shouldn't be paid for my time, training and experience.
I understand that you are differentiating between 'sport/recreational' flying and getting a JAA licence, I just can't see that we could get the fundamentals of cost down so that a 'sport' licence is a feasible goal using the current crop of a/c.
BEagle your idea sounds very sensible, how much chance is there of something like this ever occuring? It would be good as there would be a decent mechanism in place to ensure standards are high enough.
SS, you are very welcome in this forum, whilst I don't agree with a lot of what you say, doesn't mean it is invalid. I am just trying to pick holes in the arguments against my own point of view, please feel free to do the same to me. I certainly don't have all the answers even though it may sound as if I think I do at times!
Does running a scout group need specific qualifications that take vast amounts of time and money to complete?
Just because I have been lucky enough to find a job that I love to do, doesn't mean that I shouldn't be paid for my time, training and experience.
I understand that you are differentiating between 'sport/recreational' flying and getting a JAA licence, I just can't see that we could get the fundamentals of cost down so that a 'sport' licence is a feasible goal using the current crop of a/c.
BEagle your idea sounds very sensible, how much chance is there of something like this ever occuring? It would be good as there would be a decent mechanism in place to ensure standards are high enough.
SS, you are very welcome in this forum, whilst I don't agree with a lot of what you say, doesn't mean it is invalid. I am just trying to pick holes in the arguments against my own point of view, please feel free to do the same to me. I certainly don't have all the answers even though it may sound as if I think I do at times!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructors Q.
SAS it dosn't have to be as depressing as you seem to see it.
The PPL who has qualified as an Instructor wiil have the same skills and required knowledge to instruct as a CPL. They will have passed the dedicated Instructor exams and have completed the same Instructor training.
The CPL may be issued on a pilot having gained 200 hours which may include the Instructor Rating course hours. The PPL will, if my ideas were to be taken up, have achieved the same level of experience. i.e. 45hrs PPL, 15hrs IMC, 5hrs Night, 100 hours PIC, 45 hours Instructor training, plus tests say 6 hours = 211 hours ish.
I have suggested that the Instructor course should be 45 hours in order to ensure that the navigation knowledge and skills were as thoroughly covered as those demanded of a CPL candidate.
Should you after gaining the CPL wish to undertake an Instructor course then an exemption of the exams (but not any papers dedicated to Instructing) should be given. A further exemtion of say 12 hours off the navigation elements, reducing ( for the CPL ) to a 33 hour course.
The option for the PPL candidate to sit the CPL/ATPL exams + specific Instructor exams should be in place for them. Should the PPL Instructor wish to obtain a CPL at a later date then they would still have to do CPL training as considered appropiate and be tested.
All the above is possible under JAR. The NPPL issues do not have to come into it.
As for the medical, well all I can say to you is the CAA medical staff are not of the same rigid point of view as you and thay have the expertise. The CAA already may as it sees fit grant exmptions if it so wishes.
The PPL who has qualified as an Instructor wiil have the same skills and required knowledge to instruct as a CPL. They will have passed the dedicated Instructor exams and have completed the same Instructor training.
The CPL may be issued on a pilot having gained 200 hours which may include the Instructor Rating course hours. The PPL will, if my ideas were to be taken up, have achieved the same level of experience. i.e. 45hrs PPL, 15hrs IMC, 5hrs Night, 100 hours PIC, 45 hours Instructor training, plus tests say 6 hours = 211 hours ish.
I have suggested that the Instructor course should be 45 hours in order to ensure that the navigation knowledge and skills were as thoroughly covered as those demanded of a CPL candidate.
Should you after gaining the CPL wish to undertake an Instructor course then an exemption of the exams (but not any papers dedicated to Instructing) should be given. A further exemtion of say 12 hours off the navigation elements, reducing ( for the CPL ) to a 33 hour course.
The option for the PPL candidate to sit the CPL/ATPL exams + specific Instructor exams should be in place for them. Should the PPL Instructor wish to obtain a CPL at a later date then they would still have to do CPL training as considered appropiate and be tested.
All the above is possible under JAR. The NPPL issues do not have to come into it.
As for the medical, well all I can say to you is the CAA medical staff are not of the same rigid point of view as you and thay have the expertise. The CAA already may as it sees fit grant exmptions if it so wishes.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
There is no IF instruction included in the PPL. There is however instrument appreciation. Very big difference.
The ability to teach that exercise is part of the instructor course.
If you think that the IMC qualification is required to teach for PPL then explain how pilots in the other JAA countries manage to teach JAA PPL.
What is even more ironic is that a French JAA instructor can instruct for the UK IMC rating in the UK without any further checks or tests beyond the FI rating - their licence does not have the local CAA restriction placed on UK FI's
Not only that but a non-UK JAA FI with an IR can teach the single engine IR without having completed any form of upgrade either.
Why make things difficult and hand the upper hand to competitors in the rest of Europe?
Why make the JAA system harder and more expensive than necessary? By doing so it makes the NPPL more attractive. Is that the idea?
Regards,
DFC
There is no IF instruction included in the PPL. There is however instrument appreciation. Very big difference.
The ability to teach that exercise is part of the instructor course.
If you think that the IMC qualification is required to teach for PPL then explain how pilots in the other JAA countries manage to teach JAA PPL.
What is even more ironic is that a French JAA instructor can instruct for the UK IMC rating in the UK without any further checks or tests beyond the FI rating - their licence does not have the local CAA restriction placed on UK FI's
Not only that but a non-UK JAA FI with an IR can teach the single engine IR without having completed any form of upgrade either.
Why make things difficult and hand the upper hand to competitors in the rest of Europe?
Why make the JAA system harder and more expensive than necessary? By doing so it makes the NPPL more attractive. Is that the idea?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I would prefer to pay to have a professional instructor who teaches regularly rather than an inexperienced volunteer who teaches once a week.
I have only flown with one 'hours builder' (who actually was very good), but all other instructors have been career instructors or airline pilots. They have all been excellent in different ways.
In my opinion most PPLs do not have the wide variety of experience needed (regardless of hours). I keep meeting people who think they could make good instructors, but I don't think most have the experience, and therefore the judgement, needed.
They definitely need a current IMC to get their students home if the weather turns. Stranding students at airstrips miles from home will soon put them off!
I do agree with the suggestion that FI's could do with more training on how to actually teach.
To be a good FI you need to be a good, experienced pilot AND be able to teach AND be able to get on with people. It isn't a very common combination.
I don't think saving £10 per hour's lesson by using an unpaid instructor will make much difference to most people wanting a PPL or NPPL. £5900 or £6500 seems equally expensive. If you want to fly you will pay it, if you don't you'll do something else.
If you want to do something interesting and glamorous and money is no object you'll take up helicopters or speed boat racing.
I am a PPL by the way.
I have only flown with one 'hours builder' (who actually was very good), but all other instructors have been career instructors or airline pilots. They have all been excellent in different ways.
In my opinion most PPLs do not have the wide variety of experience needed (regardless of hours). I keep meeting people who think they could make good instructors, but I don't think most have the experience, and therefore the judgement, needed.
They definitely need a current IMC to get their students home if the weather turns. Stranding students at airstrips miles from home will soon put them off!
I do agree with the suggestion that FI's could do with more training on how to actually teach.
To be a good FI you need to be a good, experienced pilot AND be able to teach AND be able to get on with people. It isn't a very common combination.
I don't think saving £10 per hour's lesson by using an unpaid instructor will make much difference to most people wanting a PPL or NPPL. £5900 or £6500 seems equally expensive. If you want to fly you will pay it, if you don't you'll do something else.
If you want to do something interesting and glamorous and money is no object you'll take up helicopters or speed boat racing.
I am a PPL by the way.
DFC - what utter rubbish. Where are all these French FIs teaching in the UK?
PPL applicants have to demonstrate the ability to fly a 180 deg level turn on instruments as part of their PPL Skill Test. To do that, they must have received at least some instruction.
I will never employ a FI who does not hold at least an IMC Rating.
PPL applicants have to demonstrate the ability to fly a 180 deg level turn on instruments as part of their PPL Skill Test. To do that, they must have received at least some instruction.
I will never employ a FI who does not hold at least an IMC Rating.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: england
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new thought perhaps...
so here's diverse thought to cogitate on
* the best **ppl** instructors are the ones that show endless
enthusiasm and a great deal of skill.
* perhaps we should stop *all* pilots on the commercial
track from instructing. some of them are not very good
instructors, and many dont have enthusiasm for the work,
other than accruing hours.
the ones that manage to politic themselves into good
positions are often worked too hard and die of exhaustion
in the summer heat (!).
so now what's remaining?
* ppl-f.i.'s with perhaps lots of hours showing the newbies
how to do it with enthusiasm and gusto and skill (in the
nppl zone).
* lots of commercial boys/girls working in mc.donalds
although i have a preference towards seeing the more
enthusiastic and capable ppl's instructing, our current
system just would not cope with the numbers of even-
more-depressed commercial wannabees waiting around on the
dole and queueing to get work, so i accept that our standards
in the uk will be lower than they could be, but that the
suicide rates of commercial wannabees is lower, and
that nhs drug costs stay lower due to less
anti-depressants being prescribed by doctors.
i do hope 'someone' finds a way to get rid of the
incapable instructors out there though, there's a need
for that, as just one bad apple in the barrel taints the
whole industry with thoughts of going to america to
get cheaper and sometimes better instruction than
can be obtained here.
we have excellent instructors in the uk industry,
we just need more of them, and less of the cruddy ones.
isnt that a question that should be addressed before
we talk of ppl-f.i.'s or at least discussed concurrently ?
no apologies for making the argument swerve a little
off course, i think its all part of the same universal
questioning that has to be made...
bluskyz, alex
* the best **ppl** instructors are the ones that show endless
enthusiasm and a great deal of skill.
* perhaps we should stop *all* pilots on the commercial
track from instructing. some of them are not very good
instructors, and many dont have enthusiasm for the work,
other than accruing hours.
the ones that manage to politic themselves into good
positions are often worked too hard and die of exhaustion
in the summer heat (!).
so now what's remaining?
* ppl-f.i.'s with perhaps lots of hours showing the newbies
how to do it with enthusiasm and gusto and skill (in the
nppl zone).
* lots of commercial boys/girls working in mc.donalds
although i have a preference towards seeing the more
enthusiastic and capable ppl's instructing, our current
system just would not cope with the numbers of even-
more-depressed commercial wannabees waiting around on the
dole and queueing to get work, so i accept that our standards
in the uk will be lower than they could be, but that the
suicide rates of commercial wannabees is lower, and
that nhs drug costs stay lower due to less
anti-depressants being prescribed by doctors.
i do hope 'someone' finds a way to get rid of the
incapable instructors out there though, there's a need
for that, as just one bad apple in the barrel taints the
whole industry with thoughts of going to america to
get cheaper and sometimes better instruction than
can be obtained here.
we have excellent instructors in the uk industry,
we just need more of them, and less of the cruddy ones.
isnt that a question that should be addressed before
we talk of ppl-f.i.'s or at least discussed concurrently ?
no apologies for making the argument swerve a little
off course, i think its all part of the same universal
questioning that has to be made...
bluskyz, alex
I'm sure you can work out who I am - PM me if you can't.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
I know of at least 8 instructors working in the UK who don't have UK issued licenses.
When I do some part time work, that jumps to 9.
I don't have an IMC rating. I do have an IR but that has nothing to do with teaching PPLs.
The basic instrument appreciation and the ability to do a level 180 deg turn in simulated imc is well covered by every instructor in Europe...99% of whom don't have an IMC.
Why do you require an instructor to hold an IMC rating? holding a rating has no relation to being able to teach instrument flying.
Good instructors check the weather and should not get caught out except of the very very very rare occasion.
That is why if I got caught out by the weather like you describe, I would put my student up in a good hotel at my expense. After all it is my mistake. That would hold true eventhough I hold an IR and we fly an IR equipped aircraft.
A recent accident near the South of England with an instructor CFIT caused the CAA to question the adviseability of instructors using IMC ratings to push the limits for VFR students.
Of course to get back on track, what BEagle is really saying in his last post is that he can never see the posibility of having NPPL instructors because they could never have an IMC and thus could never be safe.
Regards,
DFC
I know of at least 8 instructors working in the UK who don't have UK issued licenses.
When I do some part time work, that jumps to 9.
I don't have an IMC rating. I do have an IR but that has nothing to do with teaching PPLs.
The basic instrument appreciation and the ability to do a level 180 deg turn in simulated imc is well covered by every instructor in Europe...99% of whom don't have an IMC.
Why do you require an instructor to hold an IMC rating? holding a rating has no relation to being able to teach instrument flying.
Polly Gnome:
They definitely need a current IMC to get their students home if the weather turns. Stranding students at airstrips miles from home will soon put them off!
They definitely need a current IMC to get their students home if the weather turns. Stranding students at airstrips miles from home will soon put them off!
That is why if I got caught out by the weather like you describe, I would put my student up in a good hotel at my expense. After all it is my mistake. That would hold true eventhough I hold an IR and we fly an IR equipped aircraft.
A recent accident near the South of England with an instructor CFIT caused the CAA to question the adviseability of instructors using IMC ratings to push the limits for VFR students.
Of course to get back on track, what BEagle is really saying in his last post is that he can never see the posibility of having NPPL instructors because they could never have an IMC and thus could never be safe.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imc Ratings
I agree with Beagle
We operate from an International Airport. RADAR, ILS, DME and NDB approaches are always available.
All my Instructors have eigther an IR or IMC Rating and I expect them to be current and able to exploit these qualifications when required.
The school is able to continue flying on top in clear air so often when otherwise visibility or low cloud would prevent training. With the support of ATC we are able to do this within safe, professional parameters.
We operate from an International Airport. RADAR, ILS, DME and NDB approaches are always available.
All my Instructors have eigther an IR or IMC Rating and I expect them to be current and able to exploit these qualifications when required.
The school is able to continue flying on top in clear air so often when otherwise visibility or low cloud would prevent training. With the support of ATC we are able to do this within safe, professional parameters.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are all these terrible commercial instructors? I have never met one (although I know Whirly has).
I have flown with lots of instructors. (I've been flying for nearly 10 years, and have an IMC and night rating. Whenever I'm on holiday in the UK I go flying at the nearest airport with an instructor.) They have all been good to brilliant - regardless of whether they were young/old, men/women or airline pilots/career instructors/hours builders. Every one of them has had an IR or IMC.
I have met PPLs who think they could instruct, but I, personally, would not trust their judgement in most cases. I wouldn't trust my own, I haven't enough CONCENTRATED flying experience.
Enthusiasm isn't enough on its own to teach anything.
I am very wary of getting into a discussion on an instructors' forum when I only have a PPL, but I can put forward the point of view of an ordinary potential customer.
I have flown with lots of instructors. (I've been flying for nearly 10 years, and have an IMC and night rating. Whenever I'm on holiday in the UK I go flying at the nearest airport with an instructor.) They have all been good to brilliant - regardless of whether they were young/old, men/women or airline pilots/career instructors/hours builders. Every one of them has had an IR or IMC.
I have met PPLs who think they could instruct, but I, personally, would not trust their judgement in most cases. I wouldn't trust my own, I haven't enough CONCENTRATED flying experience.
Enthusiasm isn't enough on its own to teach anything.
I am very wary of getting into a discussion on an instructors' forum when I only have a PPL, but I can put forward the point of view of an ordinary potential customer.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homeguard.
Interesting point about climbing on top when the weather prevents basic PPL flying. However, like I said in my last post, I teach PPL students PPL flying.
Do you start charging the student from the usual chocks to chocks and have them pay to be a passenger for some of the time they pay for or do you only charge them for the usefull instruction period i.e. the bit during which they receive appropriate instruction?
Regards,
DFC
Interesting point about climbing on top when the weather prevents basic PPL flying. However, like I said in my last post, I teach PPL students PPL flying.
Do you start charging the student from the usual chocks to chocks and have them pay to be a passenger for some of the time they pay for or do you only charge them for the usefull instruction period i.e. the bit during which they receive appropriate instruction?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again …
Well I wandered back to the PPL forum and found little of interest there, so I sauntered back to see what had been said in my absence. Therefore, as SAS kindly welcomed me to pick holes in his argument, I will
You say none of your instructors were or ever were PPL instructors? … I find this very hard to believe as the usual way to CPL before JAA was via the 700 hr self improver route. To build hours once reasonably experienced, you would normally either go glider tugging or dropping parachutists unpaid, or do an AFI course and instruct for remuneration. The CPL virtually always followed the FI not the other way around as it is now. Unless all your instructors were ex mil or part time ATPLs, I really can’t see how you figure what you say? Whatever, I’m just being pedantic
So … What are we calling for now? Even more qualifications than are needed at present …
hmmmm! That makes sense uhhhh! The IMC is unique to the UK, if the FI rating is JAA and Euro wide then the nearest equivalent needed to be fully instrument proficient is the IR rating … do you seriously mean that all instructors should have an IR as well? If you do then you can write off half those that teach now! That’s progress!
Polly … Believe me there are some very good and some extremely terrible instructors from both camps out there!!!
Now we come back to the nitty gritty … cost! By my reckoning it would cost me as a suitably qualified perspective PPL instructor (that is that I meet the flight time pre-requisites) somewhere around £2500 to get the CPL papers (course + test fees) and a further £5k for the FI, just to be allowed to instruct for free. To get payed I’d probably pay another £3k for the CPL flying part, if a certain amount of cross over flying time could be wheedled out of the training school. For microlights it would cost around £2500 all in to get the FIR to be allowed to teach and get payed. This is to teach NPPL in an aircraft a few pounds lighter and often more capable (these days) than SEP. Sorry but there really does seem a certain disparity there?
I can see there are some on here that will never agree but once again I say … The CPL exam pass requirement to be allowed to teach is a new and wholly OTT requirement at PPL level. If SEP wants to attract the same enthusiasm as microlights or gliding it needs to become more accessible by reducing costs on the recreational side. It can do this at entrance NPPL level by incorporating many of the suggestions mooted. JAR SEP would then be a natural step for those who decide they want bigger or want to go commercial.
SS
Well I wandered back to the PPL forum and found little of interest there, so I sauntered back to see what had been said in my absence. Therefore, as SAS kindly welcomed me to pick holes in his argument, I will
You say none of your instructors were or ever were PPL instructors? … I find this very hard to believe as the usual way to CPL before JAA was via the 700 hr self improver route. To build hours once reasonably experienced, you would normally either go glider tugging or dropping parachutists unpaid, or do an AFI course and instruct for remuneration. The CPL virtually always followed the FI not the other way around as it is now. Unless all your instructors were ex mil or part time ATPLs, I really can’t see how you figure what you say? Whatever, I’m just being pedantic
So … What are we calling for now? Even more qualifications than are needed at present …
hmmmm! That makes sense uhhhh! The IMC is unique to the UK, if the FI rating is JAA and Euro wide then the nearest equivalent needed to be fully instrument proficient is the IR rating … do you seriously mean that all instructors should have an IR as well? If you do then you can write off half those that teach now! That’s progress!Polly … Believe me there are some very good and some extremely terrible instructors from both camps out there!!!
Now we come back to the nitty gritty … cost! By my reckoning it would cost me as a suitably qualified perspective PPL instructor (that is that I meet the flight time pre-requisites) somewhere around £2500 to get the CPL papers (course + test fees) and a further £5k for the FI, just to be allowed to instruct for free. To get payed I’d probably pay another £3k for the CPL flying part, if a certain amount of cross over flying time could be wheedled out of the training school. For microlights it would cost around £2500 all in to get the FIR to be allowed to teach and get payed. This is to teach NPPL in an aircraft a few pounds lighter and often more capable (these days) than SEP. Sorry but there really does seem a certain disparity there?
I can see there are some on here that will never agree but once again I say … The CPL exam pass requirement to be allowed to teach is a new and wholly OTT requirement at PPL level. If SEP wants to attract the same enthusiasm as microlights or gliding it needs to become more accessible by reducing costs on the recreational side. It can do this at entrance NPPL level by incorporating many of the suggestions mooted. JAR SEP would then be a natural step for those who decide they want bigger or want to go commercial.
SS
Until not so long ago, it seemed highly likely that the 'not much difference between Microlight and SEP' would be used to the Microlighters' disadvantage. A CAA high-up tried to get many of us round to his view that all 3-axis devices should be SEP, leaving just flex wings, foot launched and powered parachutes to the BMAA.
At the time we were having a difference of views with the BMAA; however, despite that no-one supported the CAA person's view and the threat receded.
But don't make too many waves about 'SEP being almost indistinguishable from advanced microlights' in case someone takes it the wrong way. What we've got now isn't perfect, but it could be an awful lot worse!
At the time we were having a difference of views with the BMAA; however, despite that no-one supported the CAA person's view and the threat receded.
But don't make too many waves about 'SEP being almost indistinguishable from advanced microlights' in case someone takes it the wrong way. What we've got now isn't perfect, but it could be an awful lot worse!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the CAA have recognised the link between the SEP rating and a microlight rating. Holders of an SEP rating can fly microlights with only differences training according to the CAA.
Of course the NPPL does not have an SEP rating so that won't work for NPPL holders
Who is the genius that came up with that little gem!
Regards,
DFC
Of course the NPPL does not have an SEP rating so that won't work for NPPL holders
Who is the genius that came up with that little gem!
Regards,
DFC
DFC - the NPPL doesn't have a 'SEP rating' only because of an error on the part of the CAA - hence this confusing 'SSEP' and 'SSEA' nonsense.
The NPPL P&SC agreed NPPL revalidation proposals have just been sent to the CAA so that they can work on unbug.gering the ANO. The P&SC consider that distinction between aircraft classes is clearer and the method of revalidating SEP, SLMG and/or Microlight aircraft ratings better defined. It is proposed that you'll be able to count hours in any combinations of aircraft for which NPPL aircraft ratings are held towards revalidation of all of them, subject to a minimum time in each class. Also there will be simpler requirements for periodic refresher training - and an opt out for those who only ever wish to fly single seat aircraft.
Hopefully the CAA will agree to it......
The NPPL P&SC agreed NPPL revalidation proposals have just been sent to the CAA so that they can work on unbug.gering the ANO. The P&SC consider that distinction between aircraft classes is clearer and the method of revalidating SEP, SLMG and/or Microlight aircraft ratings better defined. It is proposed that you'll be able to count hours in any combinations of aircraft for which NPPL aircraft ratings are held towards revalidation of all of them, subject to a minimum time in each class. Also there will be simpler requirements for periodic refresher training - and an opt out for those who only ever wish to fly single seat aircraft.
Hopefully the CAA will agree to it......
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Farnham
Age: 58
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL theory to instruct
Having followed this thread for a while, I thought it worth contributing as one who would instruct as a PPL FI......were it possible.
I find myself in a very similar position to SS, and but for the onerous time constraints of the CPL theory exams would have an FI rating by now.
I am one of the many/few(?) multi-thousand hr, ex mil pilots, but only hold a PPL. Unlike many of my contempories I chose a career outside professional aviation after the military, but still have a deep love of flying.
Having chosen to return to the GA/enthusiast side of flying, I would love to be able to give something back to that community. However the sheer time committment to theory exams and residential phases is extremely difficult to reconcile with a full time career.
With a military background, which included being an instructor both on the ground and in the air, I sense another element to this thread. This quite rightly higlights the inability of many to transfer their technical proficiency across to others through the medium of teaching. Lady in Red proposes a Central Teaching Establishment, well proven in CFS(Central Flying School) guise, beloved of many in the military. Perhaps it is an opportunity for yet another MoD PFI to run courses for civilian instructors at CFS(rw & fw). But I digress?!
I support Beag's position on minumum skill levels absolutely - and I, like many experienced PPLs are keen to feed back professional experience into ab-initio PPLs. I wouldn't even consider presenting myself to be an FI without having had an IR at some stage. I would also strongly support the concept of comprehensive instructional course - but many of us have had instructional backgrounds anyway, and would expect no less.
So what? Well I for one, and I know a number of others too, would welcome a relaxation in the CPL theory examination position that currently discourages us from giving back to our hobby what we gained as professionals.
I find myself in a very similar position to SS, and but for the onerous time constraints of the CPL theory exams would have an FI rating by now.
I am one of the many/few(?) multi-thousand hr, ex mil pilots, but only hold a PPL. Unlike many of my contempories I chose a career outside professional aviation after the military, but still have a deep love of flying.
Having chosen to return to the GA/enthusiast side of flying, I would love to be able to give something back to that community. However the sheer time committment to theory exams and residential phases is extremely difficult to reconcile with a full time career.
With a military background, which included being an instructor both on the ground and in the air, I sense another element to this thread. This quite rightly higlights the inability of many to transfer their technical proficiency across to others through the medium of teaching. Lady in Red proposes a Central Teaching Establishment, well proven in CFS(Central Flying School) guise, beloved of many in the military. Perhaps it is an opportunity for yet another MoD PFI to run courses for civilian instructors at CFS(rw & fw). But I digress?!
I support Beag's position on minumum skill levels absolutely - and I, like many experienced PPLs are keen to feed back professional experience into ab-initio PPLs. I wouldn't even consider presenting myself to be an FI without having had an IR at some stage. I would also strongly support the concept of comprehensive instructional course - but many of us have had instructional backgrounds anyway, and would expect no less.
So what? Well I for one, and I know a number of others too, would welcome a relaxation in the CPL theory examination position that currently discourages us from giving back to our hobby what we gained as professionals.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long since you retired form military aviation. If not too long then have a good look through LASORS and forulate a nice letter to the CAA asking if you could have any exemption or relaxation of the requirements.
If you have previously demonstrated an acceptible standard then I think you could be considdered to be in the same situation as a JAA FI who has allowed their rating to lapse by a similar time and thus could take the same route back into instruction possibly under an exemption which is permitted under JAR-FCL.
You say that you would never become an FI without first holding an IR. How do you explain how the 99% of European instructors teaching at PPL, CPL and FIC level ever manage without holding an IR?
Wouldn't a silly requirement to hold an IR simply bring a full stop to PPL training in Europe?
However, having held an IR and with plenty of IFR experience the route to an IRI is short and simple provided you add an IR to your PPL. You could even add a CRI very easily with little effort in time.
I can see how people trained in a system that required an IR to be held before doing an FI course to feel that it was necessary. But is it really when no instruction is going to be provided for the IR?
Would I be correct to say that the RAF train FIs to teach both the visual and IR elements from the start and their entry requirements reflect that?
Regards,
DFC
If you have previously demonstrated an acceptible standard then I think you could be considdered to be in the same situation as a JAA FI who has allowed their rating to lapse by a similar time and thus could take the same route back into instruction possibly under an exemption which is permitted under JAR-FCL.
You say that you would never become an FI without first holding an IR. How do you explain how the 99% of European instructors teaching at PPL, CPL and FIC level ever manage without holding an IR?
Wouldn't a silly requirement to hold an IR simply bring a full stop to PPL training in Europe?
However, having held an IR and with plenty of IFR experience the route to an IRI is short and simple provided you add an IR to your PPL. You could even add a CRI very easily with little effort in time.
I can see how people trained in a system that required an IR to be held before doing an FI course to feel that it was necessary. But is it really when no instruction is going to be provided for the IR?
Would I be correct to say that the RAF train FIs to teach both the visual and IR elements from the start and their entry requirements reflect that?
Regards,
DFC