PPL - Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the moment to get a JAA FI rating you will have to at least past the 8 CPL exams. IF you want to get get paid you will need to pass the CPL test as well. You then do the full FI rating.
Your FAA CPL is worth nothing in the JAA world. You want to get paid in Europe you need a JAA CPL.
Your FAA CPL is worth nothing in the JAA world. You want to get paid in Europe you need a JAA CPL.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 77
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PPL Instructor
I am becoming increasingly irritated with the concepts being discussed on this forum by some members and the approach being adopted by AOPA with regards to the alleged Instructor shortage and the use of PPL instructors.
The concept of a PPL instructor flying at weekends to train and support small non profit making flying groups / clubs is an excellent Idea and should be progressed. However with the caveats that the organisation is a small group / Club working for the good of aviation and its members and non profit making. In this manner the group members understand they are working with a Non professional Instructor who's prime objective is the love of flying and the benefit of the group. However he/she should be remunerated for his time as class / IMC ratings and medicals cost a lot of money to maintain.
Now on the other hand the large and not so large Flying schools who are in operation as a business, offering 'Trial Flight' and other forms of flying entertainment and with a primary objective of making money should only be staffed by Professional Pilots with a class 1 medical and a minimum of a CPL. The public coming through the door expect and deserve to be flown by somebody with a professional licence. Anything less and the business is conning the paying public.
The recent article in the June issue of the AOPA magazine angered me.
''Training group tackles Instructor shortage''. This article supports the Corporate AOPA members and is looking for short cuts to undermine the existing band of instructors who are the backbone of GA Training in the UK. At no time did the article mention methods of improving the pay and conditions of existing career instructors, Why not?????????. This is the main cause of any alleged shortage. Because on that note I suggest these organisation take a good look at themselves because if they are worth working for they would attract the right calibre of instructor and not just the hour builder who is off at the first opportunity. In the part of the UK I work in the good outfits have no staffing problems.
The use of PPL instructors in the Corporate operation is criminal abuse of the system.
It undermines the CPL instructor who has had to spend in the region of £20000+ to qualify and maintain licences.
What crazy ideas will you come up with next, PPL pilot assistants on schedule operations!!!!!!!!
The concept of a PPL instructor flying at weekends to train and support small non profit making flying groups / clubs is an excellent Idea and should be progressed. However with the caveats that the organisation is a small group / Club working for the good of aviation and its members and non profit making. In this manner the group members understand they are working with a Non professional Instructor who's prime objective is the love of flying and the benefit of the group. However he/she should be remunerated for his time as class / IMC ratings and medicals cost a lot of money to maintain.
Now on the other hand the large and not so large Flying schools who are in operation as a business, offering 'Trial Flight' and other forms of flying entertainment and with a primary objective of making money should only be staffed by Professional Pilots with a class 1 medical and a minimum of a CPL. The public coming through the door expect and deserve to be flown by somebody with a professional licence. Anything less and the business is conning the paying public.
The recent article in the June issue of the AOPA magazine angered me.
''Training group tackles Instructor shortage''. This article supports the Corporate AOPA members and is looking for short cuts to undermine the existing band of instructors who are the backbone of GA Training in the UK. At no time did the article mention methods of improving the pay and conditions of existing career instructors, Why not?????????. This is the main cause of any alleged shortage. Because on that note I suggest these organisation take a good look at themselves because if they are worth working for they would attract the right calibre of instructor and not just the hour builder who is off at the first opportunity. In the part of the UK I work in the good outfits have no staffing problems.
The use of PPL instructors in the Corporate operation is criminal abuse of the system.
It undermines the CPL instructor who has had to spend in the region of £20000+ to qualify and maintain licences.
What crazy ideas will you come up with next, PPL pilot assistants on schedule operations!!!!!!!!
Last edited by orionsbelt; 8th Jun 2007 at 13:55.
So such organisations should stop the 'trial lesson' pretence and become bona fide AOC-holding organisations offering joy rides. Little Lord 4 ring-Cessna pilot can then impress such punters to his heart's content quite legally.
Whereas it is most certainly intended that some PPL-level flight instruction will certainly be conducted by non-CPL holders in the future and that they will also be entitled to receive remuneration for this.
"The use of PPL instructors in the Corporate operation is criminal abuse of the system.
It undermines the CPL instructor who has had to spend in the region of £20000+ to qualify and maintain licences."
Utter nonsense. The ability to impart flight instruction in an airborne environment is the main requirement. Own flying skill, experience and spare capacity are also important of course, as are sound interpersonal skills. Whereas knowing how many stewardesses are required in a 747 is utterly irrelevant.
Whereas it is most certainly intended that some PPL-level flight instruction will certainly be conducted by non-CPL holders in the future and that they will also be entitled to receive remuneration for this.
"The use of PPL instructors in the Corporate operation is criminal abuse of the system.
It undermines the CPL instructor who has had to spend in the region of £20000+ to qualify and maintain licences."
Utter nonsense. The ability to impart flight instruction in an airborne environment is the main requirement. Own flying skill, experience and spare capacity are also important of course, as are sound interpersonal skills. Whereas knowing how many stewardesses are required in a 747 is utterly irrelevant.
Nope, sorry.
The process started a week ago; it will be harmonised with EASA requirements, so may take a couple of years to achieve.
It is aimed at pilots of SEP Class aeroplanes, with the right qualities and experience to impart instruction. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect some to build hours at PPL level, then, if they are accepted onto FI courses, to earn some money as FIs before embarking on the CPL/IR route to people-tube jobs.
The process started a week ago; it will be harmonised with EASA requirements, so may take a couple of years to achieve.
It is aimed at pilots of SEP Class aeroplanes, with the right qualities and experience to impart instruction. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect some to build hours at PPL level, then, if they are accepted onto FI courses, to earn some money as FIs before embarking on the CPL/IR route to people-tube jobs.
