Somebody I know has an N-reg plane and an FAA PPL/IR.
He never had a UK/JAA PPL but had/has an NPPL and IIRC used to fly microlights.
To comply with the 2014 EASA FCL garbage, he is looking at starting off on the EASA PPL, using the 100hr route.
But he has not had the FAA PPL long enough to log 100hrs post-checkride.
Do any of his NPPL hours count?
The EASA LAPL is no good because he will eventually want to replicate his IR also and there is no possibility of any IR on the NPPL.
Funnily enough I have just read that an instructor can be paid for instructing even though he does not have a CPL or even has passed the CPL exams - so long as he is going only NPPL or LAPL training. For EASA PPL training he needs the CPL exams. What a bizzare restrictive practice! It must have been done this way to stop the FTOs having competition.
Do any of his NPPL hours count?
Any hour that could be flown legally on his FAA licence should count so if they are flown in an SSEA aeroplane then they qualify as SEP, but Microlight hours will not count.
What a bizzare restrictive practice! It must have been done this way to stop the FTOs having competition.
Its called compliance with ICAO Annex 1. A NPPL is not an ICAO licence so there is no need to comply.
"What a bizzare restrictive practice! It must have been done this way to stop the FTOs having competition"
Peter I don't get this statement why is it restrictive practice?
What I was referring to was this bit
an instructor can be paid for instructing even though he does not have a CPL or even has passed the CPL exams - so long as he is going only NPPL or LAPL training
Does ICAO really specify the requirements for an instructor to be remunerated?
Years ago, in the UK, a PPL could train a PPL, ab initio. These were later grandfathered into BCPLs. This is not so far back - maybe 25 years? That would have been in breach of ICAO.
ICAO wise no idea.
Yes we have effectively gone back to how things used to be all be it they will only be able to instruct for the NPPL and LAPL.
Although I'm not that old I do actually still have a BCPL the reason it was created was to get around the introduction of the ICAO requirement that all FI who teach for the PPL have to hold a CPL. And that still applies today which is why they can only teach for Sub ICAO licences.
I do wonder how this is going to pan out. I come across alot of fATPL/IR who having just forked out a 100 grand at some world leading FTO are unemployed and have pretty poor CV when it comes to getting a job in GA.
On the other hand I see some excellent GA PPL people who would make an excellent flying instructor.
I also wonder about the lowly keen as mustard wannabee from a low income background. Maybe this (plus the CBIR?) will give them more access to the industry.
the ICAO requirement that all FI who teach for the PPL have to hold a CPL. And that still applies today which is why they can only teach for Sub ICAO licences.
I must be going thick but I thought one could teach (remunerated) PPL with just CPL exam passes (expired OK too); an actual CPL was not required.
Or is that for non-remunerated teaching only?
The other angle is that, in the UK anyway, you need a JAA CPL to receive money for (almost) anything. For example FAA CFII instructors doing remunerated IR training (in any reg aircraft) need a JAA CPL.... in theory
who having just forked out a 100 grand at some world leading FTO are unemployed
Could you suggest how the 100k might be broken down? I cannot see how one can spend £100k, unless one is throwing in some very nice hotel.
your correct you only need CPL TK to teach for the PPL.
Well if you talk to the world leading FTO they will say its for the quality of instruction and the facilities all of which I am sure are very good (although I do know of some dreadful instructors that they have employed in the past)
Others would say its to pay for their huge marketing and propaganda campaign all of which I suspect allows them to make a tidy profit.
But I agree its a huge amount of money and some 2.5 times the amount what a modular guy would pay.
OK so you need CPL TK (and the FI) to teach PPL and be paid for it.
But if teaching NPPL or LAPL he just needs a PPL (and the FI) to be paid for it - correct?
Re the £100k, I wondered how it is actually broken down. Is somebody charging £500/day to sit you at a desk in a classroom? I know renting a twin is £400+/hr but you could do the CPL and IR (ME) flight training several times over for £100k unless you are completely inept.
"But if teaching NPPL or LAPL he just needs a PPL (and the FI) to be paid for it - correct?"
Yes that's correct.
Thinking of doing it?
Payment is a function of National or EU law nothing to do with ICAO
ICAO Annex I recommends that one of the pre-requisits for a FI should be CPL level knowledge (not a CPL). ICAO never envisaged a sub ICAO licence, the whole point of ICAO is to set minimum common standards in aviation.