Requirements for supervising FI
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Requirements for supervising FI
Do you need to have a current and valid;
1) Licence
2) Class rating
3) FI rating
4) Medical
to be the nominated supervising FI for an FI(R)?
I thought it was yes to 1, 2 & 3, but wasn't really sure about 4.
Had a look round and found this old thread from four years ago, any advance from what was said then, or situation still the same?
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instruc...vise-fi-r.html
Thanks
1) Licence
2) Class rating
3) FI rating
4) Medical
to be the nominated supervising FI for an FI(R)?
I thought it was yes to 1, 2 & 3, but wasn't really sure about 4.
Had a look round and found this old thread from four years ago, any advance from what was said then, or situation still the same?
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instruc...vise-fi-r.html
Thanks
Can't see why an FI who is temp without medical couldn't supervise
Requirement for a medical certificate
72 (1) This article applies to any licence granted under article 64, other than a National
Private Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) or a Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence.
(2) The holder of a licence to which this article applies is not entitled to perform any of
the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical
certificate issued under paragraph (4).
72 (1) This article applies to any licence granted under article 64, other than a National
Private Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) or a Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence.
(2) The holder of a licence to which this article applies is not entitled to perform any of
the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical
certificate issued under paragraph (4).
It is already promulgated in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011. FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges which come into effect tomorrow and override the UK ANO.
There is however a catch:
The privilege does not extend to instructing or examining candidates with higher level licences.
There is however a catch:
(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.
(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:
(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.
(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:
(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.
![](/images/avatars/th_new.gif)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoppity, where does it say that?
I understand the PPl FI will not be able to teach for a CPL as they must hold the licence for which they are teaching for. However I have not seen anything that prevents a PPL FI teaching someone who holds a higher licence or an examiner for testing.
According to the bods in FCL the only thing a PPL FI will not be able to do is train or test for a CPL. Everything else is acceptable according to them. So is this an interpretation on your part or is there something specific from the CAA?
I understand the PPl FI will not be able to teach for a CPL as they must hold the licence for which they are teaching for. However I have not seen anything that prevents a PPL FI teaching someone who holds a higher licence or an examiner for testing.
According to the bods in FCL the only thing a PPL FI will not be able to do is train or test for a CPL. Everything else is acceptable according to them. So is this an interpretation on your part or is there something specific from the CAA?
I am merely quoting what it says in the new Regulation
It ties the ratings to "these licences" which it defines in (1) as the PPL and the LAPL.
Under JAR-FCL it has always said, licences or ratings
A subtle change of wording, whether intentional or otherwise, conveys a different meaning. When I queried it with someone from the CAA, it was clear they weren't even aware of the wording!
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.
Under JAR-FCL it has always said, licences or ratings
Examiners shall hold a licence
and rating at least equal to the licence or
rating for which they are authorised to
conduct skill tests or proficiency checks
and rating at least equal to the licence or
rating for which they are authorised to
conduct skill tests or proficiency checks
![](/images/avatars/th_new.gif)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah OK. I wonder if perhaps it might be worth stating in your interpretation as it did rather read like fact.....
I did wonder when I read the wording originally if that was in fact what was intended and called the CAA to establich the position. What they told me was as above and they did confirm in an email. There is a likelyhood I will use some PPl FI and CRI in the future so needed to be clear.
It is yet another example of the poor grasp of English demonstrated by the people writing these rules, but then if you look at much of the team responsible English is not their first language.
I did wonder when I read the wording originally if that was in fact what was intended and called the CAA to establich the position. What they told me was as above and they did confirm in an email. There is a likelyhood I will use some PPl FI and CRI in the future so needed to be clear.
It is yet another example of the poor grasp of English demonstrated by the people writing these rules, but then if you look at much of the team responsible English is not their first language.
Of course it may say something entirely different if we read it in any of the other languages. I am sure lots of FIs will want to revert back to PPL privileges and a Class II medical.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Whopity
lots of FIs will want to revert back to PPL privileges and a Class II medical
In addition to converting UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) + FI Rating to Part-FCL PPL(A) + Part-FCL FI(A) Rating, may one retain UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) for use on non-EASA aircraft?
Will the UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) exist after transition?
If so, would there be there any point in retaining the licence?
![](/images/avatars/th_new.gif)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair though, the BCPL was only created to allow the original PPL FI's to continue. So we are just restoring the status quo! Or is it just an ego thing that BCPL's don't want to be seen as 'mere' PPL's again?
At the end of the returning the BCPL to a PPL changes nothing in the privileges and will allow them to continue to work as Instructors. Whats wrong with that?
At the end of the returning the BCPL to a PPL changes nothing in the privileges and will allow them to continue to work as Instructors. Whats wrong with that?
Will the UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) exist after transition?
As Bose-x says, nothing lost or gained.
The original metamorphosis was free, the return journey has a price tag, unless holders kept their original PPL!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is it just an ego thing that BCPL's don't want to be seen as 'mere' PPL's again?
To be fair though, the BCPL was only created to allow the original PPL FI's to continue.
So we are just restoring the status quo!
At the end of the returning the BCPL to a PPL changes nothing in the privileges and will allow them to continue to work as Instructors. Whats wrong with that?
Edit: crossed with Whopity's useful answer. Thank you.
![](/images/avatars/th_new.gif)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, in return, I think that many of those BCPL(R)s, who have several thousands of instructional hours, have served their 'apprenticeship' in lieu of CPL Theoretical Knowledge many times over!
Is it some sort of need for recognition or self elevation over those with less time?
What about those with BCPL (unrestricted) ?
The privilege does not extend to instructing or examining candidates with higher level licences.
But a PPL/FI holder may not instruct for the issue of a CPL or ATPL.
An instructor must hold the licence or rating for which instruction is being given. Hence the idea that a PPL/FI could not, for example, conduct any refresher training for a CPL holder with SEP Class Rating is incorrect.