The question was how to reduce the cost of flying. If instructing is a good way to do it is another matter, but it’s definitely a way to do it.
I don’t know. You’re into 10-15k€ additional flight training at a payment of – in our club – around 22€ per hour. And they go completely on your income taxes and you have to pay for your training, materials, refresher seminars, etc. that does not make any sense to reduce flying costs. Even with the full 22€/h, you have to instruct for 450 hours at least, just to get your costs back, more realistic figure would be double the instructing hours. The hours necessary to even begin flight instructor training are not included. The way this is set up in Part FCL now, this is feasible just if you have a CPL and want to diverisify in aviation jobs. EASA has to change this, because the aero clubs run dry on instructors and the local authorities run dry on examiners.
In Germany, there is no national license left, except the microlight license. So if you want to do aerotowing with an aircraft (rather than a microlight), you have to have an EASA-License and comply to the rules I mentioned above. If your CAA let’s you fly 75 hours after obtaining the license, this is not part of EASA FCL (or JAR-FCL for that matter). But on local regulations, I can not comment. However, it seems trivial, that you need to be able and allowed to fly with the aircraft, if you want to do airwork with it. Furthermore, under EASA regulations you can not do aerotow instructions in a Pawnee.
These days, most people who actually get their FI rating are actually those who just got an ATPL, obviously don’t find a job, and then, out of despair, go for the FI rating just to be able to remain current and stay in business somwhow. Needless to say, they are usually very good instructors.
A passionate private pilot who wants to do part-time instructing because that’s what he likes to do (or even if it were to reduce his cost of flying) will just not take all the hurdles to get the rating nowadays.
Which is a shame, because even the professional aviation lives partly from the feed out of aero clubs and it is a backbone of aviation lobbying in the citizens. At least in Europe.
So if you want to do aerotowing with an aircraft (rather than a microlight), you have to have an EASA-License and comply to the rules I mentioned above. If your CAA let’s you fly 75 hours after obtaining the license, this is not part of EASA FCL (or JAR-FCL for that matter).
It’s minimum 75 h with “motor”. This includes instruction, and could be done on microlight, motor or TMG, or any combination. This regulation is not the CAA, it’s the requirement of the gliding association. They also require 10 sorties before getting the rating, as well as 10 take offs and landings in a glider (could be with an instructor). The CAA only say that a valid rating is one obtained according to a gliding organization approved by the CAA. The microlight association has for some odd reason made additional requirement for operation of microlight as a towing aircraft.
I don’t know where "your " requirements actually come from, NCO? SERA? but for the time being neither are valid for Annex II types, such as the Pawnee in Norway, so the local regulations are valid. There was a hearing some months ago about “aerial work” where glider towing was included, but I don’t remember the specifics. I do remember my comment though. This madness of having different regulations and different ratings for the exact same job, could easily be solved by including glider towing rating as a part of the gliding regulations, where it belongs in the first place. This is also how it originally was. Towing with TMGs has been done for decades, and a TMG can be flown with PPL or a gliding license, but the requirements was set by the glider association and was exactly the same for TMG and motor.
A passionate private pilot who wants to do part-time instructing because that’s what he likes to do (or even if it were to reduce his cost of flying) will just not take all the hurdles to get the rating nowadays.
A few well-intentioned and dedicated ‘idiots’ still do, although it’s a mug’s game for sure….
These days, most people who actually get their FI rating are actually those who just got an ATPL, obviously don’t find a job, and then, out of despair, go for the FI rating just to be able to remain current and stay in business somwhow.
That’s very much the case in the UK and has been for years. They also do it to build hours because they have the CPL/IR and ~200hrs and for an ATPL they need a total of 1500hrs of which 500 have to be multi-pilot, so they have to build 1000hrs somehow. They cannot pay for this themselves so instructing is the only way. One can get a RHS jet job with the CPL/IR and ~250hrs TT but only if you are very good or lucky, and the more one can pick up while instructing the sooner you will make the 1500.
Needless to say, they are usually very good instructors
I wouldn’t say that in the UK, from my experience. Maybe 1/2 are good. The other 1/2 are variously crazy (but think they are brilliant). I think they are too young.
Many years ago, maybe 25, a PPL+FI could teach a PPL and get paid for it. That was stopped and you had to have a CPL (a full CPL) but existing instructors were grandfathered into the BCPL. Now you can do it on a PPL+FI again but you need the 13 CPL exam passes… otherwise you can do the LAPL (or the corresponding portion of the EASA PPL) only.
Oops, sorry. I obviously meant to say “not very good instructors”.
AFAIK, the instructor rating has always had rather high requirements and costs in most countries of Europe. Most countries have always required some kind of CPL for instructing.
Germany was an exception here. Pre JAR-FCL, it was possible to put a FI rating on top of a plain vanilla PPL. The course was 80 (45 min-) hours or so of theory class (i.e. a week) plus 10 hours of flying (in a crappy old 150 if you liked).
This allowed many “normal” PPL holders without any great ambitions to become a flight instructor and then instruct in the local flying club, mostly free of charge or for beer money only. That was a good thing, as it allowed a big and healthy aeroclub scene to develop where people could fly for quite little money.
All this has changed. With the advent of JAR-FCL (which was in April 2003 in Germany) getting the rating has become a major job. I got my flight instructor rating in February 2003…
LeSving, EASA-licensing is regulated in Part FCL and is valid for all EASA member states. But you can find the Pawnee in the List of EASA Aircraft. Not sure about the versions or other registration possibilities, though.
Why should aero tow belong into glider pilot regulations, when you can’t even move the aircraft with the glider license? Besides, Gliding is regulated in Part FCL, also.
The EASA world has it like this.
PPL,LAPL or LAPL or SPL with TMG: 30 hours and 60 landings as PIC (after flight training) and 5 tows in a glider with an instructor and then instruction: 5 tows with instructor and 5 tows solo under supervision. No flight test required. This is actually one of the reasonable regulations.
But you can find the Pawnee in the List of EASA Aircraft.
So I see 
Christ. Well I have much more than the minimum, hundreds of solo tows, but not 5 tows with instructor! Not possible with a one seater Pawnee. I only have one single tow with an instructor, and that is with a microlight.
Had to look it up to be sure. It is a few years since I started towing. The local regulation still state (for aircraft requiring PPL/TMG license): Minimum 10 departures and landings on the actual type used. Minimum 100 hours flying time and minimum 75 with motor. Minimum 10 solo launches with a glider, and have a valid glider student licence when the rating is issued (I had more than enough solo time in gliders from before). Not more than 10 launches as PIC with a glider behind with an experienced pilot in the glider. If towing is part of EASA FCL, then these regulations obviously cannot be valid anymore, and should be removed.
Well, I got the rating, and no one can take it away now. I also got the microlight towing rating.
Why should aero tow belong into glider pilot regulations, when you can’t even move the aircraft with the glider license?
Because gliders can be towed with microlights also, and is, in increasing numbers. Gliders are EASA types, microlights are not. In practice this means glider towing still is as arbitrary, governed by local regulations as ever before. And, for me, I had to take a towing rating twice, with different rules. What are rules for? In this case, to be broken obviously, because different rules exist for the same job.
I mean, the towing of a glider, from a safety aspect is just as much about the safety of the glider and doing it safe in a crowded glider environment, as it is about the technicalities of piloting the towing aircraft. Towing a glider is not difficult, but having a situational awareness of all the activity going on, that can be difficult with 5-10 or more gliders around. They are hard to see when they fly below the clouds. Towing a glider is a glider activity, it’s not a PPL activity or a microlight activity. You cannot tow a glider with no gliders to tow. Glider towing is no license kind of thing, it is an “operation” kind of thing. This operation does not change character if you do it with a Pawnee or a microlight. The way it was before, is much more logical in my view than it is now.
