Martin wrote:
Under EASA an FI needs at least 200 total and 150 PIC (CPL(A) needs 200 total and 100 PIC, IIRC). Those “150hrs” he told Peter about might have been PIC hours.
It is interesting. I’ve trained at a school where almost all instructors are young hour builders. The two I have asked stated 180 hours and 140 hours as their TT, without mentioning PIC. I’ll have to clarify with them.
But are they active GA pilots? Professional airline pilots live in a different world
Many pilots I have met would certainly make a general comment, and risk being accused of being elitist 
by saying that the biggest moaners, and usually the most aggressive personalities on aviation sites, do the least amount of flying!
However it’s probably true that airline pilots and ATCOs are rather more likely to be detached from the way GA works. There are of course many exceptions; I know many who really do a lot of GA flying. A number of these are on EuroGA too 
I believe more and more that for GA to survive, there has to be differentiated much more clearly than today between commercial and non-commercial operations.
There is no connection between them anyway. Can you give an example of a commercial operation which you think is insufficiently differentiated?
What we do see is the strictly non-commercial operations blooming, like experimental homebuilds and microlight.
This is meaningless. Is there a confusion between AOC ops, and private ops using aircraft with ICAO compliant CofAs?
LeSving wrote:
If GA in the US were blooming with activity like nothing before, I would agree, but that is not what seems to be the case today. What we do see is the strictly non-commercial operations blooming, like experimental homebuilds and microlight.
Those Experimentals and etc are flying off 5000 ft paved runways that are justified by stuff like having three flight schools on the field, busily training Asian and European pilots, who want to become commercial pilots and pay the price to do so… including paying state and local taxes on their fuel. Once airborne an RV, Lancair, Eze or whatever can if desired get radar service through virtually any airspace because GA trains all pilots to do that sort of thing in singles and twins and because GA is supported as a-to-b transport, Experimentals included. Because Experimentals can be used for practical puposes in that way, more people buy them and thousands of kit built sales result, some operated IFR. The volume and scope of activity, including Experimental and microlights, reflects there being a overarching system for all aviation, not a fragmentation into adversarial components.
The only reason for sport aviation to split off and hide is if it is losing more than it gains from bad regulatory practices, plus punative fees and other negative funding mechanisms. When aviation is instead treated as a complementary whole, dividing commercial and non-commercial aviation only limits the utiity and success of stuff like Experimentals and microlights.
I think many people like a bit of verbal sparring, as long as it doesnt get out of hand.
@JnsV Just to provide you with a reference, No 1178/2011 FCL.915.FI (page 70). Requirements for a CPL are in Appendix 3 E.12. (for a modular CPL course, page 106).
PS: I haven’t made it clear previously, it’s one or the other. If you have a CPL (100 hours PIC, 200 hours total to get it), that’s enough. If you have a PPL, you need 150 hours PIC and 200 hours total. This is only for aeroplanes.
Instruction
Much of whether a pilot will make a good instructor is attitude, not whether they have an instrument ticket or not. An attitude that is based on character, something that pervades all parts of life, not just aviation.
In the USA the model is to have pilots freelance as instructors not based on attitude/ability to teach, but on passing a written/checkride. The motivation to become a CFI or CFII is personal no doubt, but most are clearly doing it to accrue hours or to pickup a few extra bucks flying in aircraft rented or owned by the students.
Posters
All aviation boards have their share of bully’s and chest beaters. The same subjects emerge: owners versus renters, brands of aircraft flown/owned, number of hours in the logbook, mechanical knowledge, and some who need to insert ego over information.
Frankly, I fly for fun and transportation. I come to these boards looking for tidbits of simple, straightforward information offered in a humble and factual way. I like a good debate based on facts, but do not like them based on bigotry or alpha-dogging.
All aviation boards have their share of bully’s and chest beaters. The same subjects emerge: owners versus renters, brands of aircraft flown/owned, number of hours in the logbook, mechanical knowledge, and some who need to insert ego over information.
Frankly, I fly for fun and transportation. I come to these boards looking for tidbits of simple, straightforward information offered in a humble and factual way. I like a good debate based on facts, but do not like them based on bigotry or alpha-dogging.
You need to spend more time on EuroGA, USFlyer, because we have very few such people here
Peter wrote:
There is no connection between them anyway. Can you give an example of a commercial operation which you think is insufficiently differentiated?
That has nothing to do with what I mean. There are two separate and in principle incompatible economies. What drives commercial aviation is paying passengers. What drives private GA is pilots purchasing planes and aircraft equipment on a one to one basis. Commercial operations have everything to gain by an extremely high technical safety level, while private GA has everything to gain on a “hardware” market free of constraints. The weak link in private GA is the pilot, and it always will be. 80-100% of fatal accidents are pilot induced in some way or the other, also for ultralight and experimentals. The only effective way to increase safety in GA is to forbid it altogether. Then what? I would most certainly start with hang/para gliding and/or sailing (off shore), both with equal or worse safety level than GA. Certification is relevant for commercial operations, but not for private.
Silvaire wrote:
When aviation is instead treated as a complementary whole, dividing commercial and non-commercial aviation only limits the utiity and success of stuff like Experimentals and microlights.
I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Experimentals and microlight cannot be used for any commercial activity. This is decided by that overarching system for all aviation. I simply mean there are no good reason for any non commercial GA to be certified and the state of things shows that fewer and fewer have any interest in paying for it. But, at the same time certification is a necessity for commercial GA.
LeSving wrote:
I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Experimentals and microlight cannot be used for any commercial activity.
What I mean is that when you divide up aviation into two separate regulatory regimes, and in particular when you remove non-certified and sport aviation from the direct authority of the CAA or equivalent, you set up the playing field for reduced airspace and infrastructure access for non-commercial ‘recreational’ aircraft. That then discourages the non-commercial and non-certified aviation activity because it substantially loses utility. You see this in Europe where in some countries some or all of the following is true: lighter aircraft (AKA microlights) are unauthorized to use ATC, unable to access certain classes of airspace or fly above a certain altitude (except on weekends!), and are unauthorized to file IFR. In addition, certified aircraft can be ‘demoted’ into non-certified aircraft using various excuses. Then because the regulatory division allows an excuse to maintain a situation wherein ‘non-recreational’ aircraft are maintained much like military aircraft, not as they were designed to be maintained, the poor owner of the demoted aircraft actually welcomes the demotion! I believe none of these are good things
That has nothing to do with what I mean. There are two separate and in principle incompatible economies. What drives commercial aviation is paying passengers. What drives private GA is pilots purchasing planes and aircraft equipment on a one to one basis. Commercial operations have everything to gain by an extremely high technical safety level, while private GA has everything to gain on a “hardware” market free of constraints.
This reads completely perverse to me. Certified piston GA (which is mostly what EuroGA is about) is almost never used for carrying paying passengers. So why do you keep raising “commercial aviation” every time somebody mentions certified aircraft?
To many people, certified aircraft has much more value in Europe: no permits needed to cross any border, can fly IFR if the aircraft meets the requirements, no limits on how long based in a country other than its registration (in most cases) etc.
when you remove non-certified and sport aviation from the direct authority of the CAA or equivalent, you set up the playing field for reduced airspace and infrastructure access for non-commercial ‘recreational’ aircraft. That then discourages the non-commercial and non-certified aviation activity because it substantially loses utility.
Exactly. This was also a concern with the “CB IR” which was carefully specified so it is a full ICAO IR, not some european subset which might have been possible under EASA, like e.g. the EIR. Any “subset” of the IR could have led to e.g. its holders being excluded from certain airspace classes, certain airports, etc. Actually we did end up with a little bit of that: the CB IR is thus marked on most holders’ licenses (not German ones, IIRC?) in order to prevent them qualifying for the HPA qualification without doing some extra work. To avoid this, you can still do the CB IR but sit all seven of the old JAA IR written exams.
