the UK doesn’t allow the “French route” where a non-CPL-theory FI can start off a PPL student (“doing the LAPL”) and then hand him/her over to a CPL-theory FI to finish the PPL where the two syllabi diverge.
This is not (no longer) the case in France, where an LAPL instructor may not give any practical flight training for the issue of a PPL licence.
It really is bloody annoying. Maybe if enough people become an FI with no CPL TKs somebody might notice and the rules might change.
I’m only doing it for self improvement and to pass on my enthusiasm to others in my spare time. I don’t need to earn money by doing it, but don’t want to throw too much at it either.
I weighed up whether to do CRI, FI or Microlight FI and chose FI. I will not so the CPL TK and by Doing the FI I will also get a CRI ticket at the same time and also be able to teach microlight. This leads to a fairly confusing list of things I can and cannot do, and getting unrestricted is further complicated by the fact any microlight hours taught don’t count toward unrestricting the license!
I suspect it will take me a long time to get unrestricted and I doubt I will ever do the TKs, but I will at least be able to teach full ab-initio microlight (maybe LAPL… but I don’t think many people do it!) and also use CRI privileges to do revals. That should be enough for me.
Maybe if enough people become an FI with no CPL TKs somebody might notice and the rules might change
Hugely unlikely. EASA’s FI proposal, maybe a decade ago, was that “a PPL could teach a PPL”. I was at the seminar where Eric Sivel (IIRC it was him) said that. Like the UK in the 1970s… just need the FI course. Made perfect sense. Then he hit a brick wall of opposition from the training industry and god knows who else, and in came the CPL theory, which is about as relevant to PPL training as a course in taxidermy.
Communications and Human Factors. At least for the traditional IR. I don’t know if it is different for the CB-IR, but I can’t see why.
The “learning objectives” (the syllabus) have been reduced a bit, evidently.
also use CRI privileges to do revals
Can a CRI do PPL revalidations? That capability (if it is correct) would produce quite a bit of work, as well as an opportunity to sign off a whole load of rusty pilots 
an LAPL instructor may not give any practical flight training for the issue of a PPL licence.
I wonder how that is tracked if you start with an LAPL course and then change schools?
I wonder how that is tracked if you start with an LAPL course and then change schools?
Or even if you remain with the same school, but decide to change to PPL training having already done, say, 10 hours of LAPL.
The strict answer, according to remarks at today’s DGAC meeting of instructors, is that LAPL hours are lost. Otherwise, in case of an accident, the club will be held responsible. It’s always the same: as long as nothing goes wrong, these things go unnoticed. It’s when there’s an accident, and every lesson (training record) is scrutinised by the authority that things start to unravel. It’s a minefield these days. One has to be incredibly careful as the responsibilities of being an FI/FE/Head of Training (Responsable Pédagogique) are vast.
Yes, a CRI can do revalidations
Timothy wrote:
The Ab Initio training to PPL does have to follow a course, with skills only introduced as others have been mastered, taught in a fairly rigid and constrained way by instructors who really know their stuff, but who don’t really need to know much besides.
To my experience, the PPL training allows for some deviations from a syllabus. Of course, to be able to learn steep turns, you have to be able to fly coordinated in the first place, but especially in the later lessons you have some freedom.
OTOH there is some more education, there are some orders that make more sense than others. You don’t start nightVFR flying without cockpit lights, you don’t start aerobatics with an inverted spin, outside snap roll or a rolling turn and you probably rather have some instrument training before going partial panel on a non precision approach.
Jujupilote wrote:
That’s a lot to be able to help others for free
Well you can get paid and a good instructor will be able to quote reasonable prices. Traditionally in Germany, gliding instructors teach for free, but than usually the club pays for the FI course.
BeechBaby wrote:
It is not to boast, but it is real world experience that is then used to show others that with stick and rudder skills there is another world out there. But you need to have done it. That’s what I hope they pay for.
It’s not easy to make this point within a certain school, but for special skills, people are willing to pay. The same applies to seaplane instruction, where I am still in the phase of gaining enough experience to really be able to instruct. Or educate, as I agree on the subtle difference.
Jojo wrote:
This is not (no longer) the case in France, where an LAPL instructor may not give any practical flight training for the issue of a PPL licence.
That is true since the introduction of part FCL, but given the total identity of LAPL and PPL training up to the LAPL skill test, it is common practice to have a student train for the LAPL and then “change her mind” shortly before the skill test and go full PPL. This is generally accepted in Germany.
Peter wrote:
Made perfect sense. Then he hit a brick wall of opposition from the training industry and god knows who else, and in came the CPL theory,
Actually, that wasn’t the training industry, that was the ICAO. And EASA already omitted the full CPL requirement (like it is crafted in the FAA system) and reduced to “only” the TK. And they crafted the LAPL to be able to have just the PPL instruct to a complete license.
Peter wrote:
Can a CRI do PPL revalidations? That capability (if it is correct) would produce quite a bit of work, as well as an opportunity to sign off a whole load of rusty pilots
Yes, she can. I tend to combine revalidations within further education (taildragger or aerotow training, VFR night courses and that stuff) so the pilot doesn’t need to make an extra flight out of it.
Jojo wrote:
The strict answer, according to remarks at today’s DGAC meeting of instructors, is that LAPL hours are lost.
Was that backed with regulations?
Jujupilote wrote:
The training seems really expensive, like an IR. That’s a lot to be able to help others for free
You still get a load of flying hours for free but only if you have time to fly tough
Plus if you are restricted you will get bored doing trial flights and circuits 
If you have a decent private life/flying outside the ATO job, it may take 5 years to get that FI restriction lifted…
A side question, I was wondering if any CRI instruction hours and number of students count toward removing the FI restriction?
carlmeek wrote:
Maybe if enough people become an FI with no CPL TKs somebody might notice and the rules might change.
ICAO standards say that an FI must have the CPL TK. That’s likely the reason why EASA demands it for training for the PPL, but not for the LAPL as it is not an ICAO license.
Airborne_Again wrote:
ICAO standards say that an FI must have the CPL
Hasn’t that always been the case? at least the last 50 years or more? But things were different back then. The normal route was PPL, build hours, then CPL and so on. Lots of people had CPL.
ICAO standards say that an FI must have the CPL
It can’t be that simple because for decades a PPL+FI in the UK could teach the PPL.
Later, these PPL+FI people were regraded to a “BCPL”.
The CPL TK ensures that only the most determined get through, when actually a lot of good instructors (pilots/teachers) can’t do a load of exams. The exams are nowadays done by banging the computer QB anyway which ensures minimum retention.
a CRI can do revalidations
Has that always been the case? Can a CRI do the 2-yearly PPL reval every 2 years? I am not referring to reval by experience, which I could never understand how that works… I have been told many times only a proper FI can do a PPL revalidation.
the total identity of LAPL and PPL training up to the LAPL skill test
That is why I asked: how can they tell? Maybe in France the DGAC digs through instructors’ qualification post-crash but I am sure this is not normal, especially if the crash happens some time after the PPL was finished. There is no general instructor comeback.
