Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1718733
Do such things exist?

I’ve seen FI scholarships but they require CPL TK as a pre-req.I have contacted one charity (Air Pilots) stating I’m happy doing LAPL and don’t need CPL TK but they won’t accept this.

Another pipe dream is a sabbatical and doing something like bush flying for a charity. However assume these all want a CPL?? I’m not looking for a paid career in flying or hour building, so again, are they’re any routes to get this?
#1718996
There are very few (no?) scholarships that aren’t aimed at young people wanting to start a career; so they assume you want a full FI, they want you to do CPL TK first to demonstrate you are serious, and you have to show that you intend a career in aviation. I’m in a similar position to you and haven’t been able to find one that might work - I could similarly plan a sabbatical to do the training and then be a LAPL instructor, but I’m not planning a career change so I don’t appear to qualify. As I can’t afford eight grand plus for a FI course, I can’t see a way forwards.
#1718998
An £8000 loan with Tesco is currently £176 a month over 4 years. If you’re going to work a min one day a week (any less and it isn’t worth doing an FI course to be honest) you should happily fly 10+ hours a month at £25 an hour most places.
#1719046
Looking at their website, organisations such as MAF require an ICAO CPL/IR as a minimum and at least 500 hours for their basic entry positions.

An FAA CPL/IR could be an option if you don't want to study for the EASA CPL exams. But an FAA CPL/IR is not a walk in the park, far from it. The written may be but the oral exams are sort the chaff from the wheat.

The Air Pilots FI(R) scholarships are not always awarded to young people, this year a retiree from an engineering background has been awarded such a scholarship. People with other careers have been awarded scholarships over the past few years. But they all did the leg work in CPL or ATPL theory first.

Not experienced one (yet) but the FIC is not a walk in the park and they (Air Pilots etc.) do wish to ensure they protect their investment somewhat thus requiring the exams as a benchmark for seriousness to take the course, pass the AoC and go on to teach a new generation.

Standards Document 10 is pretty good especially as a gauge to the level of theory required not only to pass the AoC but also on a day to day basis once qualified.
#1719289
I’m in a similar position, quite a lot of experience and now retired from the grind. I’ve been instructing on a CRI for the past 12 years.

I’d rather not invest another 6-18 months of my life doing the CPL exams - (again )! Especially as I don’t believe they are necessary to teach the PPL syllabus. I’ve also taken the CPL exams twice - and passed everything first time - except for Morse Code.

I just couldn’t hear - - . And write down G in one step. I needed to hear - - . then write - - . To get to G.
In the CAA CPL / ATPL morse exam, you were simply not allowed to write anything down.

For as long as I can remember, the authorities have been under the misapprehension that everyone wanting to gain an FI or an IR was a wannabe airline pilot and (at the suggestion / insistence of the ATPL/CPL training schools) have been using the CPL exams as a mechanism to filter out unsuitable wannabe’s - rather than examining what is really needed.

I’m pinning my hopes on the authorities coming to their senses and setting an exam that more realistically reflects the requirements to instruct at PPL Level.

What makes it even more ludicrous, is that from a theoretical knowledge perspective the PPL and LAPL syllabus are identical. Yet you can instruct the entire LAPL course without doing the CPL Theory exams. What does this tell us ?
Maxthelion, marioair liked this
#1719319
@Lefty I’m in a similar position too, minus CPL and your hundreds of hours experience. I posted a similar thread on the Other Side and got a bunch of abuse about wanting someone to pay for me to have a CPL - missing the point.

If I have to pay for a CPL I’d just go bush flying or something more selfish.
#1719333
Just for information:
1) Most of the charity based flying organisations require a minimum of a CPL licence because, to defray their costs, they carry fare paying passengers on a high percentage of their flights.

2) The religion supported organisations (including MAF), don’t pay their pilots any salaries. They require their pilots to be long term committed followers of (their) faith. I know for a fact that MAF require their pilots to be established committed Christians and for them to be sponsored by their local church (at home here in the UK).
The travel and (in country) cost of living expenses for the pilot and his family have to be paid for by donations from his local church back home.
#1719342
Lefty wrote:2) The religion supported organisations (including MAF), don’t pay their pilots any salaries. They require their pilots to be long term committed followers of (their) faith. I know for a fact that MAF require their pilots to be established committed Christians and for them to be sponsored by their local church (at home here in the UK).
The travel and (in country) cost of living expenses for the pilot and his family have to be paid for by donations from his local church back home.


Many thanks for this as it is rather interesting information. Although I'm not looking to go this route (instructing for me) it is an organisation I had heard about and thus the one I quickly looked up. Interesting info though, I had always assumed that they were paid.
#1719343
Lefty wrote:Just for information:
1) Most of the charity based flying organisations require a minimum of a CPL licence because, to defray their costs, they carry fare paying passengers on a high percentage of their flights.

2) The religion supported organisations (including MAF), don’t pay their pilots any salaries. They require their pilots to be long term committed followers of (their) faith. I know for a fact that MAF require their pilots to be established committed Christians and for them to be sponsored by their local church (at home here in the UK).
The travel and (in country) cost of living expenses for the pilot and his family have to be paid for by donations from his local church back home.


Yeah - I sympathize more with the charity based flying as they need a revenue source in addition to charity donations - shame the passengers can't pay the organisation rather than the PPL flying,. Appreciate you want a baseline level of competence and the CPL is used as a measure of that. Otherwise we could open a Wingly Charity division

I don't think we can talk politics or religion or brex*t on here can we? Suffice to say, if I could fly some people around on a voluntary basis, and help them, but I was stopped because I didn't "believe", then that says far more about the narrow view of the "religious" charity than anything else and shame on them.
#1719351
From a legal standpoint, the sell tickets to any one that wants to travel. In that respect they are no different to a charter airline. They operate under an AOC from whichever country they are in - and therefore all pilots need to have a minimum of CPL. Neither do they accept your 250 or 500 hr guy with a freshly minted CPL. They are looking for 1000 hr plus multi IR CPL’s.

Of course the pure commercial operations in remote countries still offer opportunities for pilots seeking an exciting intro to commercial flying. Look up the posts on here from “Moose” - plus his articles in Flyer Magazine describing his life as a bush pilot in Indonesia (I think).

They are very very illuminating. However entry level is still a minimum of CPL and Turbine rating.