Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
By SteveX
#1816106
Because a CRI has hardly been taught to teach in that few hours have they! In fact a CRI doesnt teach to fly, they assist someone reach another type of qualification. The instrument bit during ppl training is easily taught by any FI who doesnt have instrument qualifications since they are taught how to teach this by their FI instructor. A 180 using the AI is hardly comparable (for this topics argument) to a NQ inc. failed PAPIs, night nav and all the other bits
User avatar
By T67M
#1816116
I asked the CAA this many years ago and got a very clear answer. A CRI can teach ONLY for Ratings and Qualifications which the student has or has previously had. The only "new" skills a CRI may teach are those covered solely by Differences Training, such as tail-wheel, constant speed, SLPC and EFIS.

Since the Night Qualification is a Qualification, a CRI can NOT teach for initial issue, but can act as instructor (rather than passenger) for the purposes of regaining night currency for an already qualified pilot provide the CRI is current to fly at night.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1816134
T67M wrote:A CRI can teach ONLY for Ratings and Qualifications which the student has or has previously had.

That's not quite right, surely? A CRI (as the name suggests) can teach for an additional Class Rating on a licence already held.

For example, if the student already holds a PPL(A) TMG then a CRI(A) SEP can teach for the SEP Rating, can't they? (In that case, within the umbrella of a Training Organisation IIRC; but they can do it.)
User avatar
By T67M
#1816346
That would seem logical, but I don't know for sure as it wasn't explicitly covered in the CAA response I got since neither they nor I mentioned TMG - my query and their response only covered training within the SEP class, specifically the NQ and IR(R).
User avatar
By GrahamB
#1816361
One of the scenarios in my CRI AOC flight was the first briefing/lesson for a TMG rated pilot who wanted an SEP rating.
Ibra liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1816641
Dave W wrote:
T67M wrote:A CRI can teach ONLY for Ratings and Qualifications which the student has or has previously had.

That's not quite right, surely? A CRI (as the name suggests) can teach for an additional Class Rating on a licence already held.

For example, if the student already holds a PPL(A) TMG then a CRI(A) SEP can teach for the SEP Rating, can't they? (In that case, within the umbrella of a Training Organisation IIRC; but they can do it.)


Correct, end of.
By Ibra
#1820430
Surely CRI can teach aerobatics to those who don't hold the rating? as well as TMG/SEP and Land/Sea rating conversions under ATO for those who hold a licenece but not the rating?

He can still teach EFIS (avionics, autopilots) at night under IFR in IMC and he can even show how to use FIKI systems in real ice, the student will log PUT but can't log IFR or BSRFI/Night time :thumleft:

Actually some "type/variant features" like adjusting G1000 contrast or dimming lights on Arrow gear are best demonstrated at night

Of course CRI can't teach for the issue of NQ or IR rating or PPL....
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1820720
Ibra wrote:Surely CRI can teach aerobatics to those who don't hold the rating? as well as TMG/SEP and Land/Sea rating conversions under ATO for those who hold a licenece but not the rating?

He can still teach EFIS (avionics, autopilots) at night under IFR in IMC and he can even show how to use FIKI systems in real ice, the student will log PUT but can't log IFR or BSRFI/Night time :thumleft:

Actually some "type/variant features" like adjusting G1000 contrast or dimming lights on Arrow gear are best demonstrated at night

Of course CRI can't teach for the issue of NQ or IR rating or PPL....


I'm not 'up' on the night stuff but it sounds like you are trying to tie a strange knot unnecessarily by doing these things at night. And EFIS is not avionics or autopilots, its 'tellies', but does require 'differences' training and sign-off (CRI can do it).
FIKI is not something that requires additional training according to the regulations, even if it might be a good idea.

For the rest of it, you are correct.

(My previous posting was clarifying a more limited question).