FI(A) renewal - validity of instructional experience in a non-JAR country?
Thread Starter
FI(A) renewal - validity of instructional experience in a non-JAR country?
I hold FI(A) and am currently working as an instructor on a MEP in non-JAR country.
There is no requirement where I am working to be a CRI on the MEP - it was merely required that I had a certain minimum experience on the aircraft, which I easily exceeded.
Will my instructing experience here be valid towards renewal of my FI(A)?
My reading of the regulations suggests that it should count as the regulations only require a minimum number of hours of instruction. There is no requirement that the instruction should be on a particular class or type.
There is no requirement where I am working to be a CRI on the MEP - it was merely required that I had a certain minimum experience on the aircraft, which I easily exceeded.
Will my instructing experience here be valid towards renewal of my FI(A)?
My reading of the regulations suggests that it should count as the regulations only require a minimum number of hours of instruction. There is no requirement that the instruction should be on a particular class or type.
Presumably your FI(A) rating is also valid on multi-engined aircraft and you hold a JAR-FCL Multi Engine Piston Class Rating?
Thread Starter
Yes, I hold a JAR-FCL MEP rating, but I do not hold a JAR-FCL MEP CRI.
My qualifications have been validated by the local authority as there is no requirement here for a specific multi-engine instructional qualification. They only required an instructor qualification, and minimum experience on the aircraft type.
My qualifications have been validated by the local authority as there is no requirement here for a specific multi-engine instructional qualification. They only required an instructor qualification, and minimum experience on the aircraft type.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 17th May 2012 at 10:27.
So, wherever you are talking about doesn't require its MEP instructors to be anything other than spamcan FIs with some time on the aeroplane in question? Who actually assesses that such MEP instructors are capable of delivering ME instruction?
The LASORS 2012 (and CAP 804) requirement is:
If you don't hold a multi-engine extension to your FI Rating, you cannot really have been conducting 'flight instruction on aeroplanes as FI'.
If you don't hold a CRI Rating, you cannot really have been conducting 'flight instruction on aeroplanes as CRI'.
Sorry, but I don't really see that the CAA will feel well disposed towards accepting instructional time for which you don't actually hold the relevant JAR-FCL qualifications. But don't accept my opinion as gospel - check with them.
The LASORS 2012 (and CAP 804) requirement is:
Complete at least 50 hours of flight instruction on aeroplanes as FI, CRI, IRI or as Examiner during the period of validity of the rating, including at least 15 hours of flight instruction within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the FI rating...
If you don't hold a CRI Rating, you cannot really have been conducting 'flight instruction on aeroplanes as CRI'.
Sorry, but I don't really see that the CAA will feel well disposed towards accepting instructional time for which you don't actually hold the relevant JAR-FCL qualifications. But don't accept my opinion as gospel - check with them.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th May 2012 at 10:52.
Thread Starter
So, wherever you are talking about doesn't require its MEP instructors to be anything other than spamcan FIs with some time on the aeroplane in question? Who actually assesses that such MEP instructors are capable of delivering ME instruction?
Anyway, even in one JAR country that I know of (Austria) there is no requirement to have extra instructor qualifications to teach MEP or even IFR - all that is required is an FI(A) and experience requirements.
The requirements of my own authority are slightly different to LASORS, but are:
100 h de formation dans les trois ans précédant l'échéance de la qualification, dont 30 heures dans les 12 mois précédant l'échéance.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 17th May 2012 at 11:23.
Actually can I chip in with a subsidiary question, if anybody knows the answer.
I'm a CRI (SEP/SPA), and have been mostly teaching SEP but (permitted by UK CAA as I have more than enough hours on class) have been doing a bit of teaching on 3-axis microlights.
No issue at present, but it might be one day - do my microlight instructing hours count towards the minimum instructional hours for revalidation of my CRI? If I teach on flexwings, does that change anything either?
(Actually let's go the whole hog, I've also been teaching on a G-reg Annex II CofA aeroplane, is EASA at some point at any risk of deciding that that didn't count towards my CRI renewal?)
G
I'm a CRI (SEP/SPA), and have been mostly teaching SEP but (permitted by UK CAA as I have more than enough hours on class) have been doing a bit of teaching on 3-axis microlights.
No issue at present, but it might be one day - do my microlight instructing hours count towards the minimum instructional hours for revalidation of my CRI? If I teach on flexwings, does that change anything either?
(Actually let's go the whole hog, I've also been teaching on a G-reg Annex II CofA aeroplane, is EASA at some point at any risk of deciding that that didn't count towards my CRI renewal?)
G
Thread Starter
My view is that any cockpit instructional experience should be valid towards maintaing an instructor qualification. I suspect the authorities in their blinkered and financially coccooned little world will have a different view though...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, even in one JAR country that I know of (Austria) there is no requirement to have extra instructor qualifications to teach MEP or even IFR - all that is required is an FI(A) and experience requirements.
I'm surprised that the francophone revalidation requirements haven't yet been reduced as they have in other natio....'Member States'. It's 50hrs in 3 years, of which 15 must be in the final year these days in the UK.
How can credit be given for 'instruction', if the authority has no knowledge as to what that 'instruction' actually was - and whether it was delivered to a standard they would deem acceptable.
Certainly when I taught ME and SE flying, because the ME flying was military I never counted it towards SE FI revalidation requirements.
How can credit be given for 'instruction', if the authority has no knowledge as to what that 'instruction' actually was - and whether it was delivered to a standard they would deem acceptable.
Certainly when I taught ME and SE flying, because the ME flying was military I never counted it towards SE FI revalidation requirements.
Thread Starter
Incorrect, I teach occasionally for an Austrian FTO and the Austrian CAA require an IRI for IR and CRI ME for ME.....
Last edited by Trim Stab; 17th May 2012 at 13:36.
From what I understand you are a FI(A) with SE privileges. You can only re-validate that by experience gained in a Class on which you are entitled to instruct. Without a ME instructor qualification, any hours instructing in an aircraft in which you have no JAA privileges are of no use for re-validation by experience.
Asymmetric training comes to mind!
I don't understand the need for yet another qualification to teach IR and MEP
Last edited by Whopity; 17th May 2012 at 16:50.
Thread Starter
Asymmetric training comes to mind!
Or do you think a sprog with 50 hours on type but with a paper qualification is better qualified to give value to the client?
Last edited by Trim Stab; 17th May 2012 at 17:03.
I think the probability is that someone who has bee taught how to do it is safer than someone who hasn't. With your experience you should be aware of the need for appropriate safety training. If it didn't matter, it would not be an almost universal requirement.
But you haven't been taught how to teach asymmetric operation! Neither have you demonstrated that you are even capable of delivering such training.
Incidentally, wherever is this banana republic which is content with such woeful training standards?
Incidentally, wherever is this banana republic which is content with such woeful training standards?
Last edited by BEagle; 17th May 2012 at 19:18.
Thread Starter
Incidentally, wherever is this banana republic which is content with such woeful training standards?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle alot of places outside the EU do the same thing.
If you hold a JAR license in alot of places you are taken as an elite god by the regulators and they will give out authorisations on out of date FI ratings and CRMI course certs.
To be honest the teaching bit isn't to bad. Its when they decided your good to go for C o A flight tests it gets a bit daft. The only reason why I did it was because I had done a couple of them before and I used the CAA flight test not the local one which to be quite honest was suicidal. They only accepted the paper work after I printed off the airbus crash on post maint flight test in the middle east. Later found out there had been 4 crashes doing the test program previously in twins.
If you hold a JAR license in alot of places you are taken as an elite god by the regulators and they will give out authorisations on out of date FI ratings and CRMI course certs.
To be honest the teaching bit isn't to bad. Its when they decided your good to go for C o A flight tests it gets a bit daft. The only reason why I did it was because I had done a couple of them before and I used the CAA flight test not the local one which to be quite honest was suicidal. They only accepted the paper work after I printed off the airbus crash on post maint flight test in the middle east. Later found out there had been 4 crashes doing the test program previously in twins.
I recall sitting in a crewroom in Canada last summer chatting to some local pilots. I was asked if I was an instructor and I explained that I was a CRI and what privileges that gave me.
They were quite surprised saying that most of those privileges were embedded in the Transport Canada CPL.
As you say Jock.
Air testing's another beast of course. It's a specialist task that really should not be done by somebody without specialist training, any more than flying instruction should.
At some point, somebody had to be first of course. But in the modern world, we do have plenty of both Test Pilots and Instructors (even if EASA has completely moved the goalposts for both), so it shouldn't be necessary in those two cases.
G
They were quite surprised saying that most of those privileges were embedded in the Transport Canada CPL.
As you say Jock.
Air testing's another beast of course. It's a specialist task that really should not be done by somebody without specialist training, any more than flying instruction should.
At some point, somebody had to be first of course. But in the modern world, we do have plenty of both Test Pilots and Instructors (even if EASA has completely moved the goalposts for both), so it shouldn't be necessary in those two cases.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G the test I refused to do was with an engine shut down, stall the aircraft and break through the stick push.
And in these places there are no "trained" test pilots, just pilots that have done it a few times and survived.
And in these places there are no "trained" test pilots, just pilots that have done it a few times and survived.
Last edited by mad_jock; 18th May 2012 at 09:24.
Not many of them by the sound of it. What the **** is the flight test benefit in that particular manoeuvre? Written by a complete idiot with a deathwish by the sound of it.
G
G