Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Can a PPL/CRI do paid training?

I vaguely recall that one needed a CPL i.e. the 9 CPL exams, the training and the flight test. And a Class 1 medical for using the privileges.

Then EASA said they would allow a PPL to train a PPL and get paid - just like it was in the UK > 20 years ago or so (later formalised into the BCPL).

Then there was an uproar and the proposal went to needing to pass the 9 CPL exams.

What is the latest on this?

I know one can be a PPL/FI (not the same as a PPL/CRI who I believe cannot train ab initio PPL students) but one cannot get paid for it.

On a related topic, there has for a long time been a reg that an FAA CFI/CFII doing paid training in UK airspace needed a JAA CPL. If a PPL/CRI is allowed to be paid, then surely that FAA instructor only needs a PPL/CRI.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

To train for the PPL (& night) you need to have CPL TK

To teach for the LAPL you don't need CPL TK

A CRI doesn't need CPL TK.

PPL holders can now be paid for instruction CRI or FI

So to train for a license or a rating which is not JAR-FCL, you just need a PPL+CRI ?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Sort of. A PPL+CRI can't train for a licence. But they can train a licence holder eg revalidation and differences training.

A CRI can also add additional privileges allowing them to instruct for the IR, MEP, Aerobatics.

Are you thinking of doing it?

"On a related topic, there has for a long time been a reg that an FAA CFI/CFII doing paid training in UK airspace needed a JAA CPL. If a PPL/CRI is allowed to be paid, then surely that FAA instructor only needs a PPL/CRI."

I know of one PPL/CRI & FAA CFI/CFII who is doing exactly that.

A PPL/CRI or a PPL/FI can now be paid for teaching at PPL level.

A CRI can teach somebody who already holds a licence. So, for example: NPPL(M)-->NPPL(SSEA), tailwheel, VP, biennial, ATPL(A)/MET--> SEP, microlight differences training... (subject to their other ratings and experience of-course) The UK extends CRI privileges to the various NPPL ratings, but that so far as I know is just UK using a JAR/EASA qualification pragmatically, since EASA has no jurisdiction over the NPPL.

CPL TK is needed to become an FI. No special TK is needed to become a CRI,although my experience (I'm CPL/CRI) was that I substantially used my CPL TK and flying standards to pass the CRI skill test.

Presumably if you are a PPL/CRI and FAA CFI you can teach in Europe for an existing licence holder and be paid, but not ab-initio - but I suspect nobody's ever actually "tested" that or got a definitive statement from anywhere. On the other hand, I doubt anybody would prosecute you to find out either.

G

Boffin at large
Various, southern UK.

A CRI can also add additional privileges allowing them to instruct for the IR

Not strictly true, to teach for the IR you have to be an IRI not a CRI. If you wish to teach for the IR on a ME aeroplane then you need to be both a CRI(ME) and an IRI

If a PPL/CRI is allowed to be paid, then surely that FAA instructor only needs a PPL/CRI."

An interesting concept. To teach in the UK you must have a UK Instructor qualification, this applies to ab-initio instruction where the student doesn't hold a licence. For commercial instruction where both pilots will be licensed, then the CPL gets around the aerial work issue and two consenting adults in an aeroplane can largely do what they like if they are both licensed.

EASA states that you can only teach to the level of licence that you hold, or for ratings on those licences; this is open to different interpretation but could mean that a PPL holder with a CRI rating could only train PPL holders for an aircraft Class or Type rating.

In the case of a FAA CFI teaching for say a FAA commercial, then one could argue that the CRI rating would not be valid if held by a PPL holder because the work does not fall within the privileges of that rating. For conversion of a UK PPL to a FAA PPL it would probably be valid as the rating permits such instruction.

Regarding payment, the privilege of the PPL holder to be remunerated is strictly defined:

(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for: (1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A); (2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences; (3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.

Therefore; it would not allow aerial work teaching for a non EASA licence. The UK ANO will permit PPL holders to train for UK National licences.

That's very interesting, Tumbleweed.

In the case of a FAA CFI teaching for say a FAA commercial, then one could argue that the CRI rating would not be valid if held by a PPL holder because the work does not fall within the privileges of that rating. For conversion of a UK PPL to a FAA PPL it would probably be valid as the rating permits such instruction.

The historical UK CAA position, AIUI, has been that FAA instructors (with no JAA papers at all) can do what they like here, so long as they are not paid, and if they are paid then they need a JAA CPL.

So I wonder how that worked.

For FAA checkrides, the CPL was not insisted on, under some agreement with the FAA (possibly involving UK-approved JAA schools in the USA).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
8 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top