One problem is that many cannot get the UK PPL.
How the hell will the simple case of an NPPL holder + a homebuilt (medical declaration OR a Class 2) be dealt with, when it comes to the 2 yearly flight with an FI? The FI can be a freelancer which gets the ATO/DTO issue out of the way, I assume.
This looks like another crude EASA industry protection measure, with no supporting safety case.
And EASA wonders why they get so much hate. So much for “proportionate, risk based” regulation. One step forward and two steps back AGAIN, and this is why I’m sticking with the FAA licensing system.
This looks like another crude EASA industry protection measure, with no supporting safety case.
Peter, that’s an awful thing to think, let alone write. And so soon after EASA forced our UK CAA and AOPA, kicking and screaming, to retain the old IMC rating (albeit under a new name)…
We all know that EASA is paid with our taxes to employ world-class aviation experts, all active pilots of one kind or another, who have the interests of recreational aviation at heart. So why on earth do we pay organisations like the FFA, AOPA, LAA, PPL/IR and EuroGA to be horrid to them? 
Peter wrote:
This looks like another crude EASA industry protection measure, with no supporting safety case.
I’m not so sure. It has been argued rather strongly here that the limitation that a PPL FI without CPL theory could only instruct for the LAPL was an industry protection measure.
Possibly it was, but I discovered that there is another issue. According to the ICAO Standards, an FI must satisfy the requirements for a CPL (but need not actually have one). That means that a PPL FI without CPL theory is not an FI at all according to the Standards. So if a country issues PPLs where the instruction has been given by PPL FIs without CPL theory, the training would not have been according to ICAO standards and the PPL might not be recognised by ICAO states outside EASA-land. This is not an issue for the LAPL since it is not an ICAO license from the start.
This may be true, but completely theoretical.
Pre-EASA several countries had PPL instructors teaching full PPLs. Wasn’t an issue, the licenses were just fine. The “might not be recognised” never was an issue, until EASA made it one.
The UK had PPL training by PPL FIs, some 20+ years ago. Then when JAA came along they got grandfathered to BCPLs. Then you needed the full CPL to teach and get paid for it. Then EASA said they will allow a PPL to teach the PPL (I heard Eric Sivel personally at a conference) but they went back on that promise, changing it to the current CPL ground exams requirement.
None of this is a real issue with ICAO because you could just file a difference, in case anybody cares.
There is a lot of pressure within the ATO/FTO business to not allow PPL+FI instructors because it would allow some schools to undercut others. Isn’t it still possible if you aren’t being paid, or was that just the UK thing? In France the FIs do need the CPL ground school to teach the PPL but they are getting paid in the clubs, if not much.
You can paid as an FI regardless of whether you hold a PPL it CPL.
I just think it’s a case of simple n incompetence. I knew an ICAO CPL holder who also held a easa PPL and FI rating. Yet the CAA wouldn’t let him teach students for the EASA PPL.
You then also get PPL holders who can’t teach for the PPL yet they can teach for the MEP and IR.
Finally you get world famous integrated flight training schools where all the training (bar the IR) is done around by instructors who don’t even hold an EASA licence.
Like alot of things is a load of croc.
Has anyone of you actually any EASA reference on this? LAA editorials don’t count.
I’d be interested in an EASA-source as well, since that would largely affect my flying.
Posts 11 and 13 should give starting points for research. Post 14 is also relevant as to where this may be in terms of progress.
