Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1695236
We discussed the scope of CRI instruction many years ago at an EASA FCL Partnership Group meeting.

In summary, the decision was exactly as Balliol describes - just because a CRI holds a competency doesn’t mean they can teach it.

No-one at the meeting (industry, NAA, EASA) considered that the scope of CRI instruction should be extended beyond its current scope.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1695237
@Balliol But surely your final paragraph only applies if you are instructing for the rating itself.

Let’s take another scenario. A PPL holder wishes to include within their revalidation instruction a few minutes with the foggles on to practice the ‘180 out of IMC’ turn. You are saying a CRI couldn’t do that?

I still can’t find anything in the regs that says this is not permitted.
User avatar
By Balliol
#1695247
Graham you’re looking at it the wrong way round - regulations do not say what is not permitted, they say what privileges are conferred - if it doesn’t say you can do it, you can’t
User avatar
By nickwilcock
#1695369
Let’s take another scenario. A PPL holder wishes to include within their revalidation instruction a few minutes with the foggles on to practice the ‘180 out of IMC’ turn. You are saying a CRI couldn’t do that?


A CRI does not have instructional privileges for instrument flying. Hence no such 'revalidation instruction' may be conducted by a CRI.
By Bathman
#1695377
I'm not sure that holds water

As an FI without any instructional privileges to teach instrument flying can teach the 10 hours instrument requirement for the CPL.

And at the end of this training the student can be issued with a BIFM!
AlanC, GrahamB liked this
User avatar
By Balliol
#1695388
There is no such thing as ‘instrument instructing privileges’ like the old applied instrument restriction

Exercise 19 is part of the PPL syllabus, an FI has the training and privilege (a) to teach for the PPL. A CRI doesn’t.

An FI can have the privilege to teach for the CPL (d) added, this includes those instrument aspects of the CPL course which any FI requires standardisation training and approval to deliver in accordance with the ATO approval.
By Bathman
#1695430
But that very same FI who has CPL (d) on his license has not done a course that allows him to teach instrument flight added (g). So they can't teach towards the IMC or IR.

Yet those 10 hours taught on the CPL course results in the student being issued with a BIFM that can be used towards the IMC rating and the IR
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1695522
I was under the impression that a CRI with a full IR can teach IR/IRR for the issue of an IR/IRR

Certainly been proclaimed to be correct by someone one here.
User avatar
By derekf
#1695567
Indeed. The problem is for a standalone IRI you need 800 hours IFR whereas for an FI(A) to add the same privileges doing the same course you only need 200 hours IFR

I'd previously only ever recorded an instrument flight column where flight was solely using the instruments (ie in IMC or simulated IMC conditions) as opposed to flight rules (VFR vs IFR flight)

I understand that historically the CAA would allow a 4 for 1 'uplift' of 'IMC' hours to 'IFR' hours but that's no longer the case.

So it's off down the FI(A) route I go if I want to teach IR(R) / IR
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1695578
So as the theme of this page is supposed to be reduction of restrictions, and back to my original post.

If we were to term an FI becoming permitted to teach for the NQ, "NQI", why could that not be potentially made available to a CRI on the same terms ?

FCL.905.FI FI — Privileges and conditions
The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:

(e) the night rating, provided that the FI:
(1) is qualified to fly at night in the appropriate aircraft category;
(2) has demonstrated the ability to instruct at night to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below; and
(3) complies with the night experience requirement of FCL.060(b)(2);


Not disputing that this is prohibited at present, but should it remain so?

G