The requirement for CPL theory is on 915.FI (thanks Caba), which doesn’t seem to be affected by this latest amendment.
(It’s under Specific requirements for instructors. I don’t really understand the nuance between general and specific here, but don’t really expect to either)
I am looking at (what I think is the current valid) part FCL and trying to see what this actually changed, but just see that point (1) and (2) above are new and go away with a very similar point.
You have read the disclaimer within these easy access documents, haven’t you?
EASA has less employees than Cologne, give them some time to update all “nice to have”-documents. The EU-LEX document is just a week old with a weekend and three days holidays inbetween.
Is this an EASA Christmas present or it is “fools day” ?
Anyone with commercial ambitions will have to do all 14 “ATPL” exams, possibly even before starting their PPL, and those people will then be spending their ground time thumbing through airline adverts and will depart the FI scene at the earliest opportunity, and only those who completely flunk their airline selection will end up as career FIs
I know plenty people with a genuine interest in teaching people how to fly.
That’s what I said, I think. And they have the exams to do for no good reason.
Then they need to just go and go it.
I know more than half a dozen PPL/FI’s without CPL TK who work as instructors. One works full time and even holds examiner privileges. Another used to work full time but then went on to do the ATPL TK and now flies a fair sized turboprop for a UK regional airline.
There is actually quite a lot you can actually teach without the CPL TK..
Also because there is such a instructor shortage at the moment one local school that will only teach students for the LAPL. If you want to do a PPL you have to do the upgrade course later.
That tactic was used in France (no idea about whether they still do) and probably other places, but there are posts here saying it is not legal in the UK (to embark ostensibly on the LAPL and then change to the PPL). I can’t easily see why it should be illegal, for the part of the PPL syllabus where the LAPL is a subset – except that the instruction may not count if the FI didn’t do the CPL theory, whoops, somehow the training must then be sub-standard
It is a bit like the ancient one about the IMCR training allegedly not being allowable towards the FAA IR dual requirement if the IMCR FI didn’t have the full IR. It is a very creative bit of reading between the lines of the FARs but, hey, reading between the lines of aviation regs is the world’s second oldest profession. I got hit with that by one “famous GA personality” active on the FAA scene (whose name is not to be mentioned on EuroGA because of the number of people threatened with legal action) who got a tipoff from another “famous GA personality” (whose speciality is beating up people on the UK sites). Fortunately for me, he didn’t know that I met the full FAA requirements while I was in Arizona so the issue was moot. Hundreds if not thousands of UK pilots got their FAA IRs via this route… I have it in writing from the FAA that it is fine.
No Peter they make their students do a complete LAPL course including test and licence issue. Once that is obtained they then do the LAPL to PPL upgrade course with a FI who holds CPL TK.
And of course at the moment their big beef is the CAA taking two months to turn a application around.
Plus they appear to try and reject everything and put you back to the start of the que.
Mr B your application has been rejected as you application for says Mr B but on your passport it says your Dr B.