Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
By PaulB
#1694863
.... but from what you're saying, there's content in the EASA CPL TK that is not in the FAA CPL TK.


So does ICAO say that an FI requires CPL TK but not then go to specify what that TK should consist of leaving states to choose their own compliance?

So one EASA state's ICAO compliant FI rating is not necessarily the same an another state's (which is, I guess the issue that MichaelP (have I got the name right) is having?)

What a farce.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1694876
That is definitely the case, almost certainly for all ratings.

Stuff in the FAA CPL that was not in my EASA CPL, for example...

- chandelles & lazy 8s
- continuous smooth steep turns
- piston engine turbocharger theory
- Technically advanced aircraft
- Turns on a pylon, concept of a pivotal altitude
- How to check VOR system accuracy

Stuff in the EASA CPL not in the FAA CPL, for example

- Polar navigation
- Jet engine design
- Spiral dive recoveries
- Global weather systems
- "Hard" collision avoidance steep turns

(Please don't take either list as at-all definitive, it's off the top of my head from personal experience).

A very major difference is that the FAA shifts a lot of the TK assessment into the long and rigorous oral, which is much shorter in EASAland. Also of course national legislative differences.

AIUI, ICAO sets minimum standards, and each country decide how, and to what extent, they will exceed those standards. So the EU decides baseline commercial pilots need to know how jet engines work, and the USA decides that they need to be able to fly really smooth accurate low level manoeuvres. I'm guessing that neither is actually in the ICAO minimums.

Offhand however, the only thing in all of that which virtually no CPL will ever use, is polar nav.

G
#1694897
PaulB wrote:So does ICAO say that an FI requires CPL TK but not then go to specify what that TK should consist of leaving states to choose their own compliance?


Pretty much. The topics are listed, but the level is not specified, other than in a circular way. FWIW, here's the ICAO requirement (non-aeroplane items deleted):

The applicant shall have demonstrated a level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted to the holder of a commercial pilot licence and appropriate to the category of aircraft intended to be included in the licence, in at least the following subjects:

Air law
a) rules and regulations relevant to the holder of a commercial pilot licence; rules of the air; appropriate air traffic services practices and procedures;

Aircraft general knowledge for aeroplanes, airships, helicopters and powered-lifts
b) principles of operation and functioning of engines, systems and instruments;
c) operating limitations of the relevant category of aircraft and engines; relevant operational information from the flight manual or other appropriate document;
d) use and serviceability checks of equipment and systems of appropriate aircraft;
e) maintenance procedures for airframes, systems and engines of appropriate aircraft;

Flight performance, planning and loading
h) effects of loading and mass distribution on aircraft handling, flight characteristics and performance; mass and balance calculations;
i) use and practical application of take-off, landing and other performance data;
j) pre-flight and en-route flight planning appropriate to commercial operations under VFR; preparation and filing of air traffic services flight plans; appropriate air traffic services procedures; altimeter setting procedures;

Human performance
l) human performance including principles of threat and error management;

Meteorology
m) interpretation and application of aeronautical meteorological reports, charts and forecasts; use of, and procedures for obtaining, meteorological information, pre-flight and in-flight; altimetry;
n) aeronautical meteorology; climatology of relevant areas in respect of the elements having an effect upon aviation; the movement of pressure systems, the structure of fronts, and the origin and characteristics of significant weather phenomena which affect take-off, en-route and landing conditions;
o) causes, recognition and effects of icing; frontal zone penetration procedures; hazardous weather avoidance;

Navigation
p) air navigation, including the use of aeronautical charts, instruments and navigation aids; an understanding of the principles and characteristics of appropriate navigation systems; operation of airborne equipment;

Operational procedures
r) application of threat and error management to operational performance;
s) use of aeronautical documentation such as AIP, NOTAM, aeronautical codes and abbreviations;
t) altimeter setting procedures;
u) appropriate precautionary and emergency procedures;
v) operational procedures for carriage of freight; potential hazards associated with dangerous goods;
w) requirements and practices for safety briefing to passengers, including precautions to be observed when embarking and disembarking from aircraft;

Principles of flight
y) principles of flight;

Radiotelephony
z) communication procedures and phraseology as applied to VFR operations; action to be taken in case of communication failure.
PaulB liked this
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1694930
In answer to the OP's question, because for me it just ain't worth the cost and time.

I'm a (recent) CRI, but to upgrade to an FI(R) would probably cost me around £9k+ to teach LAPL, and £12k+ to teach PPL, when one wraps in travel and accommodation.

In some ways I'm the ideal part-time instructor, in that I'm retired, motivated, have a fair bit of experience (1500+ hours and an IR) and I instruct because it's what I want to do, not as a stepping stone to a RHS somewhere.

Living where I do, the rate of return on that investment would just be too poor, however altruistic I'm feeling.
PeteSpencer, AlanC, Lefty and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By MichaelP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1694954
The Swissair SMEs I interacted with when producing the CBT course for BAe and Swissair wanted to bring in Astro Navigation to the CPL syllabus.
I asked where the astrodome was fitted to modern jet airliners, and did my bit to prevent this becoming part of JAR.
I did write a lesson in spherical trigonometry, with which you could work out Earth distances... I don’t think this made it onto the syllabus either.
(I have a history that many are not aware of, they take me at face value and make their assumptions).

A lot of this CPL - ATPL knowledge is of passing interest to some, and though I do not officially (EASA) possess such knowledge, I do instruct in it sometimes.

A lot of the real necessary knowledge is within the training one does for multi engine and instrument ratings.
When you are type rated in an airliner you take a course which includes performance, engine, airframe, and systems.
The CPL needs to know the principles of navigation, point of no return, point of equal time etc.
Perhaps the EASA requirements assume a candidate is going to get straight into a turbine aircraft and start flying, it may forget that a lot of the knowledge requirement is fulfilled within the type training.
Like teaching a professional driver all the air systems on an articulated lorry when all the candidate wants to do is drive a taxi.

Life of an instructor

Just one flight this morning, circuits in the Citabria where flying ability is more important than knowing how a fuel control unit works.
Two flights tomorrow, Citabria and Cessna 172.
Cessna 182 amphibian on Wednesday morning... More circuits to perfect alightings on the water.
Thursday night back to Gatport Airwick.

Weather has turned to low cloud and rain... There are three aeroplanes and three instructors, I’m the ‘fill in’.
Earnings will not be good today for me...
Yesterday, two flights, then red lights a plenty between airports, a frustrating reminder of how I hate to drive in the Vancouver area... M25? Luxury!
Instructors are subject to cancellations, the weather, and aeroplane serviceability, all of which affect your income.
Freelance instructors are subjected to the roads too.

If it works out, I will come back here from time to time, and keep my skills current.
‘Need to find something part time in England to keep my head above water. I accept that this may not be related to the experience I have gained in this life.
#1694979
James Chan wrote:
It strikes me that a good first step is to identify why pilots who might become instructors choose not to do so.


I have a full time job at the moment, but one day when I have both the time and the money to take a step back from this, then being a flight instructor is something I'd really like to do.
Same here. It's not anything to do with the training for me, I'd happily swap to being a full time Instructor as a job if only it paid so that I could afford the mortgage.

I sat down with a couple of instructors and discussed the compensation side. They all said they loved it but simply couldn't afford to be a full time instructors, since then both have gone on to do airline work.


Sent from my BBB100-2 using Tapatalk
#1695021
After a 30yr IT career and a year job applications interviews and no replies I took a career shift course last summer. The point of course was to help you brainstorm what you wanted to do. The formula is good at it + love it + pays enough = fulfillment.

It was obvious to me from the outset. I knew and I've always known I want to be a pilot. The more I talked about it the more I realised I have to commit to it or stop dreaming. JFDI! But how... and pilot what? and at 52 am I bring just plane stupid.. NPI!

Following the formula plus my need to be flexible to fly at least once a week and the approach prescribed I looked for temp jobs I could tryout. Suffice to say... I've never been happier and I've never been poorer. I have 4 p/t jobs fly once a week or more and I'm 16hrs into my ppl with 1 hr solo. 2 of those jobs are min wage and 2 are approx £15/hr.

So that leads me to where I'm heading... Without a Cpl my options are limited (I've got my Class 1 Medical). My current inspiration is my ppl instructor who's 70 and flying gods willing will be for my night, IRr and MEP. The target hrs I believe is 200 before any kind of renumeration is possible. And with a Cpl and IR I can extend my employability and flying options.

On my current path I've got about 2.5yrs to go so plenty of time to read up on your experiences and to meet you and chat to you along the way...

I'm flying Robins out of Headcorn.



Sent from my SNE-LX1 using Tapatalk
#1695053
GrahamB wrote:In answer to the OP's question, because for me it just ain't worth the cost and time. I'm a (recent) CRI, but to upgrade to an FI(R) …


Actually my original intent was to ask about all flavours of instructors qualified to teach in flight: FI, CRI, IRI and all of those dum^H^H^H extra ones introduced by EASA in Part-FCL (mountain, aerobatics, etc.). But the insight that CRI is achievable for many but FI is not is a useful insight, thank you.
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1695139
bookworm wrote:
GrahamB wrote:In answer to the OP's question, because for me it just ain't worth the cost and time. I'm a (recent) CRI, but to upgrade to an FI(R) …


Actually my original intent was to ask about all flavours of instructors qualified to teach in flight: FI, CRI, IRI and all of those dum^H^H^H extra ones introduced by EASA in Part-FCL (mountain, aerobatics, etc.). But the insight that CRI is achievable for many but FI is not is a useful insight, thank you.


I'd love to do an IRI, but that is equally unrealistic, as I still need another 400 hours of IFR time (if the old 4:1 IFR to IF rule still applied, I'd qualify already). I suppose I may get there eventually, but by then I dare say I'll be too old to be sharp enough! (Doing the other route, via an FI - see above).
User avatar
By derekf
#1695189
GrahamB wrote:
bookworm wrote:
GrahamB wrote:In answer to the OP's question, because for me it just ain't worth the cost and time. I'm a (recent) CRI, but to upgrade to an FI(R) …


Actually my original intent was to ask about all flavours of instructors qualified to teach in flight: FI, CRI, IRI and all of those dum^H^H^H extra ones introduced by EASA in Part-FCL (mountain, aerobatics, etc.). But the insight that CRI is achievable for many but FI is not is a useful insight, thank you.


I'd love to do an IRI, but that is equally unrealistic, as I still need another 400 hours of IFR time (if the old 4:1 IFR to IF rule still applied, I'd qualify already). I suppose I may get there eventually, but by then I dare say I'll be too old to be sharp enough! (Doing the other route, via an FI - see above).


Same issue here so looking at the FI route...
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1695245
derekf wrote:
GrahamB wrote:
bookworm wrote:
Actually my original intent was to ask about all flavours of instructors qualified to teach in flight: FI, CRI, IRI and all of those dum^H^H^H extra ones introduced by EASA in Part-FCL (mountain, aerobatics, etc.). But the insight that CRI is achievable for many but FI is not is a useful insight, thank you.


I'd love to do an IRI, but that is equally unrealistic, as I still need another 400 hours of IFR time (if the old 4:1 IFR to IF rule still applied, I'd qualify already). I suppose I may get there eventually, but by then I dare say I'll be too old to be sharp enough! (Doing the other route, via an FI - see above).


Same issue here so looking at the FI route...


If EASA are serious about tackling the instructor shortage, perhaps someone should look at ways in which CRI privileges could be extended in sensible ways (see other thread about NR/Q and Instrument training).

Why not allow a CRI to attach an IRI with the reduced pre-entry experience requirements that FIs can claim. Why not other instructional ratings?
By PaulB
#1695294
Or look at different ways of interpreting the CPL TK requirement as it seems that not all ICAO states interpret that requirement in the same way.

Was it SteveC who suggested that the relevant TK might be contained within the FI course itself?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10