FI Restricted without FI present
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: British Isles
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FI Restricted without FI present
I have been asked to instruct at a new flying club at a remote location as a "satellite" of an existing flying club.
I have an FI (Restricted) rating only. The new club won't have an FI on base, the supervision being remotely from the main club.
I've had various bits of advice ranging from it's ok to "don't touch it with a barge-pole!"
CAA website doesn't provide an answer so if any kind soul has any information on this, would be very much appreciated please.
I have an FI (Restricted) rating only. The new club won't have an FI on base, the supervision being remotely from the main club.
I've had various bits of advice ranging from it's ok to "don't touch it with a barge-pole!"
CAA website doesn't provide an answer so if any kind soul has any information on this, would be very much appreciated please.
There has never been a definition of what 'supervision' means. Various clubs ATO/DTOs perhaps set their own standard. The practice of a FI(r) operating without an FI present on the airfield has become widespread over many years and the CAA has never sought to interfere or even comment.
It seems that it is for the individual and the club to decide how they wish to arrange things.
It seems that it is for the individual and the club to decide how they wish to arrange things.
Grey is good.
It’s not necessarily an unreasonable argument to point out that a FI(R) can’t send first solos or first solo X-countries and of course you need supervised solos to remove the restriction.
Yet, beyond the first solo and first solo x-country issue, there is nothing saying you require direct supervision to send students solo. They just wouldn’t necessarily count towards your derestriction.
There is nothing I have seen written which discusses where the supervision should take place from or in what form.
It’s not necessarily an unreasonable argument to point out that a FI(R) can’t send first solos or first solo X-countries and of course you need supervised solos to remove the restriction.
Yet, beyond the first solo and first solo x-country issue, there is nothing saying you require direct supervision to send students solo. They just wouldn’t necessarily count towards your derestriction.
There is nothing I have seen written which discusses where the supervision should take place from or in what form.
Educated Hillbilly
There was a training.com that came out about this a few years back and much of what is written above isn't necessarily accurate. I will see if I can locate this.
The solo supervision sign off form requires counter signature from the supervising FI.
The solo supervision sign off form requires counter signature from the supervising FI.
Educated Hillbilly
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...P1853_corr.pdf
It is a bit vague but there is a paragraph on FI(R) supervision and it is a pre Brexit document so not up to date. But interpret as you will.
It is a bit vague but there is a paragraph on FI(R) supervision and it is a pre Brexit document so not up to date. But interpret as you will.
What you need to consider is following an accident, what would a court reasonably consider to be supervision. What would the clubs insurers reasonably consider to be supervision and would you still be covered by the insurer if you did not fulfill their interpretation.
CAA Training Com 1/2007
CAA Training Com 1/2007
Last edited by Whopity; 14th Jun 2021 at 23:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: British Isles
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much indeed guys,
I think the last two posts from ports harbour flyer & Whopity sum it up really well for me.
I’ll have a chat with the main flying club and see what risk assessment has been made.
I heard from another source that a High Court action is going on at the moment on this very subject.
my mind is pretty well made up 😉
I think the last two posts from ports harbour flyer & Whopity sum it up really well for me.
I’ll have a chat with the main flying club and see what risk assessment has been made.
I heard from another source that a High Court action is going on at the moment on this very subject.
my mind is pretty well made up 😉
Unfortunately as admirable as it is the Training Com bore no effect legally even if good practice and it is full of gaping holes legally. The CAA have not followed the good advice into regulation most likely because plugging the legal holes has been too big a task. Judges do not act on opinion they enforce the law. Insurers do not claim the expertise on such things, they tell me because that is not their job, Put simply if the situation is legal/illegal then they pay out/do not pay out. It should be understood that an FI and FI(r) are considered employees by insurers whatever their contract with the club/school and therefore come under the 'Employers Liability' policy.
Although various CFEs have done much to bring pragmatism and good leadership over the years, sadly, the CFE position has been progressively side lined in the CAA over the years and are rarely listened to nowadays. I do agree though that it cannot be a good situation where a FI(r) and very new to the job is left isolated having to act entirely on their own. Nor do I think it a good idea for an FI who is unrestricted with just the minimum experience to do so either.
Although various CFEs have done much to bring pragmatism and good leadership over the years, sadly, the CFE position has been progressively side lined in the CAA over the years and are rarely listened to nowadays. I do agree though that it cannot be a good situation where a FI(r) and very new to the job is left isolated having to act entirely on their own. Nor do I think it a good idea for an FI who is unrestricted with just the minimum experience to do so either.
Educated Hillbilly
The pre JAA/EASA CAA system for AFI to QFI essentially what would be equivalent to FI(R) and FI(A) involved doing an upgrade test with a FIE (slightly before my time).
The 25 solo sign offs and the 100 hours is a fairly meaningless in terms of FI competence, more a measure of how busy a school you work for, so I agree Fl1ingFrog, a recently unrestricted instructor is no indication of competence.
The 25 solo sign offs and the 100 hours is a fairly meaningless in terms of FI competence, more a measure of how busy a school you work for, so I agree Fl1ingFrog, a recently unrestricted instructor is no indication of competence.
Without researching my notes, lodged somewhere in the attic, I cannot be sure of the exact requirement of AFI to FI. From memory: The Assistant Flying Instructor was required to hold an IMCr or an IR. The AFI was required to accrue several hundred hours of instructing (including sent solos) to apply to upgrade. This could take the AFI working part time a number of years. To be a FI (commonly known as a QFI) you also had to be qualified to teach applied instrument flying (the IMC rating). This involved undertaking a course similar to the IRI course today and followed by a test. You were also required to undertake a specific upgrade to FI test although this did not follow a course of upgrade training. The AFI was tested every year but the FI every two years. The AFI being an assistant to the FI provided an atmosphere such that a transfer of knowledge happened without rancour (good and bad of course).
The AFI could not operate at all without a supervising FI being present at the airfield.
The AFI could not operate at all without a supervising FI being present at the airfield.
200 hours plus the applied IF course (7 hours) and FI Test to upgrade from AFI to FI. No requirement for any solo sign offs. QFI whilst used in the civilian World is a military abreviation.
