Learning to be a helicoper pilot

"Beav" wrote in message
...

Well no actually and it still doesn't, but maybe I'm a TC

Perhaps I should have spelt it out fully, but to my mind being employed to
teach means being licenced to teach, and therefore CFI rated.

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Beav" wrote in message
...

Well no actually and it still doesn't, but maybe I'm a TC

Perhaps I should have spelt it out fully, but to my mind being employed to
teach means being licenced to teach, and therefore CFI rated.

Si


Unfortunately, that's not always the case. In my active years as a full
size fixed wing pilot, I ran into a couple of folks through the years that
were "teaching" friends how to fly the airplane but were not CFI certified.
For that matter, I could have taught someone to fly the airplane but it
would be a moot point for obvious reasons.

I remember talking to one "student" who was having a great time doing this
and he knew that his "instructor" wasn't a rated CFI. I asked him if he was
serious about earning his pilots license. He said, "yes." I asked him why
he flew with his friend because he couldn't legally log the hours toward his
flight rating. He said, "yeah, but it's still good experience." I told him
that if he's serious about getting the flight rating, it's still a waste of
money. He's still got to log that time under the supervision of a CFI. The
time he had didn't mean anything toward his flight rating and the money he
spent didn't either. He's not saving himself one penny as he'd still have
to re-fly those hours once he got with a real CFI. He either didn't
understand my point or didn't care. As best as I can recall, he never
earned his license either. The thing that scared me at the time was
wondering what kind of bad habits he was getting from a non rated
instructor?

FWIW
Fly Safe,
Steve R.

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Beav" wrote in message
...

Well no actually and it still doesn't, but maybe I'm a TC

Perhaps I should have spelt it out fully, but to my mind being employed to
teach means being licenced to teach, and therefore CFI rated.

AIR, you said "employed" but didn't say employed "to teach".

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
AIR, you said "employed" but didn't say employed "to teach".

I said "recently qualified and earning as a part-time helicopter
instructor".

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
AIR, you said "employed" but didn't say employed "to teach".

I said "recently qualified and earning as a part-time helicopter
instructor".

That's right...except your subject and verb don't match :~)

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Beav" wrote in message
...

Well no actually and it still doesn't, but maybe I'm a TC

Perhaps I should have spelt it out fully, but to my mind being employed to
teach means being licenced to teach, and therefore CFI rated.

Si


That's how I read it, Si. :-)

With some folks, you can't make any assumptions on how they're going to
interpret things we put in print. The same tendency that had me, in this
case, reading into your post what you truly intended, has gotten me in
trouble in other conversations. You just can't take this stuff for granted!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

"Steve R." wrote in message
...
"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Beav" wrote in message
...

Well no actually and it still doesn't, but maybe I'm a TC

Perhaps I should have spelt it out fully, but to my mind being employed
to
teach means being licenced to teach, and therefore CFI rated.

Si


That's how I read it, Si. :-)

With some folks, you can't make any assumptions on how they're going to
interpret things we put in print. The same tendency that had me, in this
case, reading into your post what you truly intended, has gotten me in
trouble in other conversations. You just can't take this stuff for
granted!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

Given that the context was a newly LICENSED pilot, using a newly licensed
INSTRUCTOR was a leap.

That they were the same age (the point of Si's comment) isn't even slightly
relevant.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Steve R." wrote in message
...
"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Beav" wrote in message
...

Well no actually and it still doesn't, but maybe I'm a TC

Perhaps I should have spelt it out fully, but to my mind being
employed
to
teach means being licenced to teach, and therefore CFI rated.

Si


That's how I read it, Si. :-)

With some folks, you can't make any assumptions on how they're going to
interpret things we put in print. The same tendency that had me, in
this
case, reading into your post what you truly intended, has gotten me in
trouble in other conversations. You just can't take this stuff for
granted!

Fly Safe,
Steve R.

Given that the context was a newly LICENSED pilot, using a newly licensed
INSTRUCTOR was a leap.

SB: INSTRUCTOR for comparison was a leap.

That they were the same age (the point of Si's comment) isn't even
slightly
relevant.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
Given that the context was a newly LICENSED pilot, using a newly licensed
INSTRUCTOR was a leap.

It's even cloudier than that. I checked the regs today. Lasors states that
even a PPL is allowed to instruct, just not receive payment. So, going back
to Steve R's post, you can legitimately log hours taught by a newly
qualified CPL or even PPL and they will count. The student just isn't
allowed to pay for it.

Si