Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1694965
Obvious question - why not?

Yes, I know that at present a CRI cannot teach for the NQ / NR. But why not, philosophically?

If they meet the same requirements as an FI to be able to teach for the NQ, why shouldn't they? I can see no level on which this is a more "ab-initio" task than, say, tailwheel or complex. So is there any valid rationale for not permitting this?

G
By Balliol
#1695030
The night rating contains a lot of the basic exercises with night differences (Ex20) that a CRI is neither trained on or competent to teach - an FI has done those Exercises in depth in their FI course and the FI addition of night privileges is a competency check they can teach those exercises with the night differences. For the same reason a CRI cannot exercises their privileges at Night.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1695064
Your last sentence is news to me - can you give a reference?

On the main gist of that, why is that different to, say, a CRI teaching from M to SSEA (or vice-versa) ? Surely virtually any differences training, or training to a significantly new type is covering basic exercises.

G
By Balliol
#1695067
The privileges of a CRI are to instruct for:

(1) the issue, revalidation or renewal of a class or type rating for single-pilot
aeroplanes, except for single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes,
when the privileges sought by the applicant are to fly in single-pilot
operations

Exercise 20 – Night Flying is not within the scope of the SEP or TMG class rating syllabus so is not within CRI privileges, just as Exercise 19 Instrument Flying isn’t and a CRI can’t teach IF.

As a CRI you are only teaching differences within the exercises - eg how a microlight landing technique is different to a heavier SEP - hence the course is only 3 hours.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1695068
@Balliol If exercise 19 is a requirement for the issue of an EASA SEP PPL, can you provide the reference that says it is outside the syllabus for the SEP rating, and therefore could not be taught by a CRI as part of an SEP conversion, say?
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1695070
There's no reason that a CRI cannot teach these other than the regulatory framework.

It would be helpful if the CPL TK would be dropped for PPL instructing and replaced with a small syllabus tailored to the additional knowledge required for teaching PPLs proper GA flying and not some irrelevant stuff, and teach and examen that as part of the FI course.
NDB_hold liked this
By Balliol
#1695083
GrahamB wrote:@Balliol If exercise 19 is a requirement for the issue of an EASA SEP PPL, can you provide the reference that says it is outside the syllabus for the SEP rating, and therefore could not be taught by a CRI as part of an SEP conversion, say?


Appendix 9 to Annex I to Part FCL
By Balliol
#1695086
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:There's no reason that a CRI cannot teach these other than the regulatory framework..


As an FICI, I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that 35hrs ground/3hrs air for a CRI produces quite a different level of instructional competence to 125hrs ground/30hrs airborne training for an FI.
carlmeek liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1695094
Quite, however I contend that teaching a NQ takes a lot less skill than teaching a tailwheel endorsement by far.
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1695102
Balliol wrote:
GrahamB wrote:@Balliol If exercise 19 is a requirement for the issue of an EASA SEP PPL, can you provide the reference that says it is outside the syllabus for the SEP rating, and therefore could not be taught by a CRI as part of an SEP conversion, say?


Appendix 9 to Annex I to Part FCL

Thanks, but I must be being particularly thick here, as I’ve looked through that twice and can’t find anything that relates at all to the question.
By Balliol
#1695115
Graham - it’s what looks like the SRG1157 Class Rating Examiner report content - it decodes down what is taught and tested - no instrument flight (Section 3B is for combined IR revals). Ex19 is included in PPL syllabus and test as it is a licence competency not a class specific item.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
#1695197
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Quite, however I contend that teaching a NQ takes a lot less skill than teaching a tailwheel endorsement by far.

Yes - as you said higher up, the regulatory framework, not the competences seem to be the issue here. Their skill tests and experience define a CRI's competences, given that plenty of CRIs have teaching and flying experience significantly greater than a new FI often has.

I also can't see that the case is made that a CRI can't instruct *at night*. For example if the CRI and their student both hold an NQ, why couldn't a biennial be conducted at night? Unusual, but I cannot see why this would be either unsafe or illegal.

G
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1695206
I would go further @Genghis the Engineer .

On further reflection (and consultation elsewhere) I remain unconvinced that a CRI can’t teach at night or in IMC, providing that it is not for the issue of the respective qualification/rating and they are suitably qualified themselves.

As a very knowledgable acquaintance said to me recently, ‘the regulations do not forbid exercising the privileges of more than one qualification concurrently’.
By Balliol
#1695221
Ok, take the scenario of a biennial at night. They decide to do some navigation then circuits for practice.

1 hour flight. The CRI logs the whole flight as PIC and instructional, the student logs 1 hour P U/T.

The CRI is exercising his CRI instructional privileges for the flight.

Night take offs and landings, and night navigation are all Exercise 20 Night Flying.

Where in the CRI rating are the privileges to instruct Night Flying? Where in a CRI course has the competency to instruct Night Flying been trained or assessed?

The whole concept of EASA instruction is that you hold the competency to do something (the rating yourself), you are then trained to instruct that competency, then you are tested on that instructional competency. Just because a CRI holds a competency doesn’t mean they can teach it. Same with aerobatics - there is a need to demonstrate that instructional competency before a CRI can instruct aerobatics.
nickwilcock liked this