Peter wrote:
I also recall EASA requiring an EASA CPL for any paid instruction in Euro-land, regardless of aircraft reg or license/rating being trained.
Not valid in Sweden, PPL/FIs get paid and it is perfectly legal.
Peter wrote:
If training towards EASA papers, and the client is paying, it seems clear that you need EASA CPL theory.
Partially, but that does not mean holding a CPL. One needs CPL theory to become a FI and train people towards a PPL. Without CPL theory, one can:
Dimme wrote:
Not valid in Sweden, PPL/FIs get paid and it is perfectly legal.
Not a Swedish thing either. It is very clearly stated in FCL.205.A(b). It’s not even in an AMC but in the regulation proper, so there is no way a national authority could prevent PPL FIs from being paid.
OK, so one needs CPL theory to become a FI and train people towards a PPL, and the payment is irrelevant.
The UK requirement for a CPL to be paid for any training in UK airspace must have gone away when this EASA concession came in – at least for training towards EASA papers.
Whether it remains for training towards non EASA papers is unanswered; various previous threads – example.
Peter wrote:
Whether it remains for training towards non EASA papers is unanswered
The holder of a (non–Part-FCL) UK PPL whose licence includes an instructor certificate is entitled to give flying instruction for remuneration or other valuable consideration. Schedule 8 to the Air Navigation Order.
That’s good.
Would an FAA CFI/CFII training in UK airspace towards FAA papers be required to hold any EASA papers?
See above, starting at the top.
[ edited – identical-topic threads merged ]
From here
I suspect that last statement is primarily a UK view. It really depends on the specific instructor‘s relationships…. is he/she tied to a private outfit or club with restrictions on their instructors’ freelance work? Especially many clubs don‘t have instructor employees but rather pay them an hourly rate/fee that is separate from aircraft charges. In most cases these instructors are free to do other individual (private, freelance) instruction outside a school‘s training program. For that training, the aircraft registration is irrelevant.
I don’t think it is. I hear lots of feedback on this topic, but it is always limited by the obvious fact that almost nobody will post negative stuff about their own country on EuroGA 
The difficulty in getting own-aircraft IR training is simple FTO economics and business models, which are the same everywhere.
Perhaps we are thinking of different things with the word „training“. There is certainly a difference between ab initio training or following a syllabus for an additional rating and recurrent training or training only needing a log book and/or evtl a form for a CAA. For example, I‘ve heard of no challenges getting an US CFII to do FAA-required training (flight review, pre-IPC, conventional gear, high performance, etc) even if that person is a Part-FCL instructor in a club.
