JAA proposes min hours on type to instruct

[NorthSouth]

JAA is proposing to introduce a new requirement that FI(A)s cannot instruct on any type unless they have 15 hours on that type. The proposed text does say "type or class" which would appear to allow instruction on a new SEPL type as long as you have 15hrs total time on SEPL aircraft. But the explanatory text is far from clear.

The proposals are in NPA FCL 1-19 which is on the JAA website at:

http://www.jaa.nl/catalogue/npas/480869.pdf

The new text of JAR-FCL 1.310 says:All instructors shall (i) hold at least the licence, rating and qualification for which instruction is being given, and (ii) have at least 15 hours experience as pilot on the type or class of aeroplane on which instruction is being given The explanatory text says:A Working Paper and the LSST(H) proposal to the LST both introduced a requirement for an instructor, and this would include all carrying out flight instruction for a licence or rating, are required to have a minimum experience of 15 hours of flight time on the specific type (and in the case of aeroplanes class).
This requirement is a general one which could apply to an FI giving training for a licence, or an FI(A), FI(H) or TRI(H) giving type rating training.So:
1. does the 15hrs only apply to training for a licence or rating (so not, for example, to club checkouts or the biennial 1hr SEPL reval flight)?
2. does it have to be 15hrs on the type AND class, or 15hrs on the type (if it's a type-rated aircraft) OR 15hrs on an aircraft in the same class (for non-type rated types such as SEP/MEP)?
3. is the proposal that it WILL apply, or just that it "could" apply as the "explanatory" text says?

Suggestions to JAA...

[DFC]

A bit of a confusing explanation. However, this system was in place in many European countries prior to JAR. From what I remember, the FI needed 30 hours in each type before being able to do any instruction.

Thus before teaching (or checking anyone out) in a C172, a instructor had to gain 30 hours in a C172.

15 hours seems to be a bit of a compromise but it is far better than the current system where instructors can hop into and aircraft with just a checkout but no real experience and start teaching someone how to fly it. Blind leanding the blinder!

Regards,

DFC

[StrateandLevel]

The 15 hours has been in JAR-FCL 1.330 since JAR-FCL was first introduced. There were anomalies in that it appears in JAR FCL 1.330 privileges of an FI, but does not appear in JAR-FCL1.325 privileges of a FI(R).

Type in this case is a Type as defined in JAR-FCL1.220. Cessna 172 and PA28 are both in the SEP Class and do not constitute different "types" so you do not need 15 hours on each.

The CAA recommend that you have a minimum of 5 hours experience on a different aeroplane within the class before instructing on it.

[Send Clowns]

Disagree DFC. I taught on the Robin HR200 with just over an hour on type. However I had 400+ hours fixed-wing, on 9 types, including over 70 on 2 types with very similar handling. Combining all my experience teaching on the Robin was far from "blind leading blind". The judgement should be by individual case - a reputable school ensures that students get good quality of tuition. The regulations you seem to recommend would have been an unnecessary burden. As suggested it seems they will not be.

[NorthSouth]

DFC:
I can't see how that worked. In my experience the only flying that instructors ever do is instructing, so if you passed your FI test on a 172 and needed 30hrs on type to instruct on anything else, you would remain a 172 instructor for life. What flying school owner is going to pay you to bimble around for 30hrs just so you can instruct on his new aircraft?

S&L: You clearly have some insight into the JAAnglish spoken by the Hoofddorpians who draft NPAs. Glad to hear that this will only apply to type rating training. As for the anomaly that JAR-FCL 1.330 requires 15hrs (in the last 12 months!) but 1.325 has no such requirement, since this only relates to type ratings it's highly unlikely to apply anyway - how many FI(R)s are teaching the PPL on a type-rated aircraft?

5 hrs on type recommended by CAA - where does that appear? News to me.

[expedite_climb]

When it was the old AFI / QFI system you had to get a stamp in your logbook for each type if you were an AFI.

Looking back in my logbook I did check flights with my FIC instructor in PA28 & PA38, (test was on C152) and then CAA FCL stamped my logbook.

Similar to the type ratings for cessna, the 152 test was valid for 150, 152, 172 & 175 and the PA28 for all engines / variants.

Once you were a QFI you didnt need to get these stamps although there may have been an experience restriction.

So - its nothing new basically.

[StrateandLevel]

The 5 hours experience on "type" (Not a JAA defined TYPE) was a recommendation under the National system and was carried forward into JAR-FCL. It was published in one of the JAA introductory AICs that has now disappeared. I don't think it is currently written anywhere but is still recommened by the CAA.

[NorthSouth]

S&L:
Interesting. I wonder how many other policies and practices are recommended by the CAA but not written down anywhere, and I wonder how the CAA imagines pilots are expected to know of their existence. Maybe we need a Telepathy Rating.;)

As regards the 5hrs on type, I understood that to be a *requirement* under the old UK national system, not a recommendation; and I can't see how it was carried forward into JAR-FCL if it never appeared in JAR-FCL.

[74Freight]

There was a fatal accident a few years ago where a newly qualified FI(R) was instructing on an old PA28-140 with the trim wheel in the roof, a difficult to read ASI from the right seat, which stalled/spun shortly after take off killing all on board, I think lack of familiarity on type was given as a partial factor ( along with possible carb ice). maybe the old system where each type had to be tested by an FIC instructor (until with experience the FI was unrestricted) was a good idea.

[NorthSouth]

Absolutely agree that the provisions for supervision of inexperienced instructors starting work at a new organisation are not very good under JAR-FCL. That accident led to an AIC on CFIs checking out new instructors, which is tackling the issue at a broader level, not just looking at inexperience on a particular type. In my view it makes sense to deal with it at that broader level rather than having mandatory previous hours requirements on particular types. And it also makes sense to place responsibility on CFIs to ensure that proper supervision is given.

[DFC]

Send Clowns,

I am humbled by any pilot with only an hour on type who can describe in clear easily understood detail the exact attitudes, power settings and aircraft responses in all aspects of flight from Vso to Vne including stall/spin. I personally would never expect to match that even at retirement. :)

NorthSouth,

The difference is that the instructors under that system were pilots who passed on their experience as well as knowledge. Today we have licence holders who in some cases teach in other cases simply try to prevent accidents while in the aircraft.

I did my test on a C152. Before teaching on the C172 I was required to show 30 hours experience on type ( and with a recomendation from the CFI, have the type included in my instructor rating). This I gained by a combination of touring and part of the instrument rating training.

Recently, I did some part time instructing to keep the rating current. PA28s were no problem for a quick checkout but for the first 20 hours I was learning just as much as the student and my briefings took some time to become as slick as the ones I can do for the C152.

regards,

DFC

[NorthSouth]

DFC:Before teaching on the C172 I was required to show 30 hours experience on type Required by whom? The old UK regs said 5hrs. If the requirement was from your particular CFI then it rather contradicts your statement thatthe instructors under that system were pilots who passed on their experience as well as knowledge

[mad_jock]

I must admit i think its a good thing if they stipulate a min time on type. But it's going to annoy alot of CFI's who will try and pass the cost onto the instructors. Something to think about while hour building for people who know they will be wanting to instruct before heading on.

On all my checkouts on new types for various schools its been maximum 3 circuits. Then away with students, wasn't to happy with it but you don't really have much choice if you want to earn some money. In fact i was only ever checked out on new types never on the ones i had already flown even if I hadn't flown them in over a year. And DFC is correct there is no way you can learn a machine in an hour. Unfortunatly most FI's the first time they spin a new type its with a student sitting next to them. Mind you we don't have instructors killing themselves all the time so maybe its not required its usually the experenced ones who have the problems

I always found the C172 a completely different beast to the C150,152 and the particular onei used to fly it must of taken about 30-40 hours of trial flights before i could place it exactly where i wanted it and stop it flying at the same time.

MJ

[NorthSouth]

Agreed MJ, typical checkout is max 3 circuits. My checkout on an AA5 was one circuit. The bl**dy thing floated for ever but I was nevertheless considered OK to take up a trial flight. What I wasn't told was that you started it on one mag so that took some embarrassing farting around. Yes, I should have known that from reading the POM...

I do agree that min hours on type is a good idea but the question of who pays is a potentially big problem, except in schools big enough to absorb the costs.

Re spinning, we all have our personal red lines. One of mine is I would never spin a type for the first time with anything other than an instructor with the relevant experience sitting next to me.

[DFC]

Noth South,

An instructor should never assume. :)

It wasn't a UK requirement. Then you know that I am not from the UK after all.

I would not be happy with CFIs arbitarily making the requirement as it would only be for money and not safety reasons. That is why the JAA / EASA are the people to inflict such a minima if it can be shown that there is a need. 30 it probably OTT but 15 can't be that far off the mark as a minimum. Remember that it is time on type and not necessarily instruction time.

If you want to spin - get Send Clowns to fly with you. He may never have flown the type but you should feel very secure after an hour of circuits prior to climbing up for that first spin. ;)

Perhaps organisations are using the "trial pleasure flight" in order to give instructors new to type more experience. No bad thing but how many instructors teach steep turns or PFLs on a "trial pleasure flight"?

Regards,

DFC

[NorthSouth]

DFC: interesting how flying school environments can be so different. My CFI wouldn't know money if it hit him in the a**se and I don't know any CFIs who are also school owners and who might therefore prioritise income over safety.

A regulation requiring 5hrs (or whatever) on type before you can instruct is a hopelessly blunt instrument because your 5 hrs could be 5hrs solo with absolutely no instruction and no serious content other than bimbling round the sky with a couple of landings. However a regulation requiring a checkout on type by a supervising instructor with appropriate experience would give you most of the basic knowledge you would need to operate the aircraft safely (talking about types within the SEPL rating here).

Even 15hrs is a hopelessly unrealistic minimum in my view. In the UK clubs and schools would just ignore it or find some way of fiddling it because the costs of giving all new instructors 15hrs on the types they hadn't flown would be prohibitive.

[poteroo]

Perhaps it should be one of currency on type, rather than a straight out TT?

This would be particularly relevant for tailwheel, and maybe also twin,aeros and formation work. Given that the endorsement or conversion training is usually given in the LH or command seat, it's a bit optimistic to then allow the recently endorsed FI to switch seats, and demo from the RHS.

In Oz, there's not even a requirement for an endorsee to fly the aircraft solo to qualify for the tailwheel type. Without some 'command' time, how on earth can the recent endorsee be capable of instructing?

I agree with previous posters that at least a check ride for junior FI's would be prudent - given that our insurers are becoming ever more nervous.

happy days,

[mad_jock]

DFC unfortunatly most organisations don't give a flying toss. Its lost revenue so they don't care.

Its more luck than judgment that an instructor isn't expected to do PFL's and Steep turns there first lesson after checkout on a new type.

Unless the organisation has to do standisation training as part of a contract or OAT, CABAIR type training it isn't going to happen.

All you need to do is look at FFF's thread and you can see whats the norm. Personally I have had to teach the nastier parts of the syllabus after 30mins on type, but i had 800hrs plus instructing behined me so it worked ok. I agree I wasn't happy with it but what do you do? I know you can come out with all the stuff about your PIC you dictate what you do or don't do.

Personally all this new regs coming in are great they give FI's legal boundarys that their employers can't get round. BUt it will cause major grief while the old dinosaurs come to terms with the fact that they are expected to run a tight ship with no screwing around. It can only be a good thing for the customers and Instructors. But it will cause major hassels for the school owners.

Next hopefully there will be a FTL scheme to stop 14 hour days and sort out all the ****e about doing plus 100 hours a month.

MJ

[BEagle]

The policy I've adopted is:

1. All new FI(R)s receive a free check-out from either myself or another nominated UK/FE(PPL).

2. If they haven't flown the 'other' variant of the aeroplane which was used for the check-out, then they get a free hour's solo GH on that as well. This follows the CAA policy following the Cherokee accident mentioned earlier.

FI(R)s then instruct whatever comes their way. We do a very, very small number of 'trial flights' - probably not even 1 per month - so the novice FI(R)s soon find their feet and are supervised as lightly as possible in order to develop their own style and decision-making experience within standardisation guidelines.

[mad_jock]

Very sensible as usual BEagle.

A pity more schools couldn't run along the same lines as yours.

MJ

[Send Clowns]

I am humbled by any pilot with only an hour on type who can describe in clear easily understood detail the exact attitudes, power settings and aircraft responses in all aspects of flight from Vso to Vne including stall/spinWhy on Earth would I ever want to attempt to do so, DFC? :confused: How could I even on the PA28, on which I have most hours? I suspect that my FI instructor would not be happy if he thought this was the way I was going to teach people, just by talking at them.

I would have a perfectly good aircraft in which to demonstrate these things, in which they experience the feel. In fact to teach someone to fly properly they should not need to know the attitude to expect except in the most general terms until they have experimented themselves and familiarised themselves. That is part of the point of the time they spend in the aircraft. Don't you teach them to select an attitude then "hold, check and adjust"?

Yes I would brief them on what to expect in general, but that can never put across the information you suggest I should. Bizarre idea. If I need to get it across in a briefing then I can be briefed myself.

Why are you teaching students in a completely type-specific way? They will gain a qualification to fly a light aircraft. Why not teach them to fly one, instead of say a Cessna 152? (Except in the details that must be type-specific such as speeds and power settings. These can of course be briefed).

And yes, I reckon having spun 4 different aircraft on scores of occasions I could recover from a spin in any light aircraft cleared for intentional spinning and make a good go of it in any not so cleared. If I could not then I would be annoyed with the people who taught me the spin recovery, a standard set of actions that should work in any aircraft certified to spin if it is in an erect spin. The idea that anyone with a lot of spinning experience needs cover to spin a new type is against the entire idea of spin-awareness training, that it should allow you to recover even in an aircraft you have never spun. Having had a student put me incipient in an aircraft not cleared to spin, I can see the value of the training.

P.S. 74Freight the accident was at Bournemouth (where I fly for Solent), at the now-defunct Airbourne (although the owner still runs courses on the airfield). The instructor had not had a checkout on the type, had never flown a PA28-140 before. I was checked out on each unfamiliar type before flying. Since the instructor who ran it when I joined left we are stricter about insisting on longer checkouts for pilots who have not flown a type. I am not advocating pilots flying unfamiliar aircraft without a check flight!