Fast instructor ratings?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not an instructor, I am a CPL with 4-figure hours, and also happen to be a qualified university lecturer with teaching qualifications in a few other things, and quite a few years practice checking out new syndicate members - none of whom ever subsequently crashed the syndicate aeroplanes, so I can't have got it all too wrong. CPL + a couple of degrees in aeronautical engineering give me confidence I can handle a bit of theory if I need to.

Adding all that up, and an interesting spare-time opportunity or two on the horizon, it might be quite useful to be an instructor.

CRI would tick one box, but FI(R) would tick a lot more. [No strong views about full FI for now, it wouldn't give me anything extra in terms of my personal wants and needs.]

I can probably find the money for either - certainly CRI is easy to fund, and given a decent run-up, FI(R) do-able. My problem however is time, which I never have enough of, and my day job is pretty demanding. I know that I learn fastest if I do it intensively anyhow - as I suspect do many people.


So, here's the question - not cutting corners or standards, and expecting to take some time off work, stay next to the flying school and devote every sensible available hour to my studies (clearly I need a little time for food, drink, sleep, and PPrune)...

- How fast could I do an FI(R) course, and where?
- And how much faster could I do it if I had a CRI first?

Assuming that I'm only interested in SEP, and function primarily in JAAland/EASAland - can anybody give me some good solid advice on this?

G

[S-Works]

Unless you want to teach ab initio PPL students or night flying then an FI is a waste of time and money. The CRI would suit your purposes perfectly. Will be cheaper and faster to obtain and much easier to maintain.

You will also be able to operate without the supervision required for a restricted FI.

[Cows getting bigger]

Full time FI - about 4 weeks. TPC Denham or Carol Cooper at Andrewsfield regularly get good press.

Can't comment on CRI other than there are none in our neck of the woods. Makes you wonder why.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yes and no.

A colleague in the test flying world is using light aeroplanes to provide test flying instruction to aeronautical engineering students who don't have pilots licences. He's currently using a couple of ex-military TPs who have FI ratings,but such people are in short supply. We don't *think* I can do that with my CPL alone, but CRI is only good for existing licenced pilots.

G

[blagger]

I did my FI course in 4 weeks, was lucky with weather though and I had 600hrs instructional before then as well. I woudl say 6 weeks is nearer the norm.

CRI is an OK rating, but remember it is only 3hrs flying - it really is a bare minimum to understand the very basic elements of teaching, I have experienced a wide variety of instructional abilities and standards from CRIs.

I think the only benefit you get from CRI towards and FI is the teaching and learnign groundschool.

For your purposes you could speak to someone like On Track and do a CRI with some top-up flying from a good FIC to cover some of the more developed handling exercises?

[Whopity]

To become a CRI you really need a specific purpose or you are not going to pick up much instructional flying amongst the clubs and schools. In terms of saving, you will be exempt the 25 hour teaching and learning part of the FI Course and 3 hours flying if you are a CRI; about 4 days out of 4 weeks! You can complete the FI course part time to spread the load a bit.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have a purpose for a CRI - conversions onto the three syndicate aeroplanes I'm in, and training people up on their homebuilts after I've test flown it for them.

I have a purpose for an FI(R), training non-pilots in flight testing for universities.

Both I'll manage to do - I have no plans to do "normal" instruction in a "normal" flying school. Nothing against it, it's just not me - at-least for the foreseeable.

Thanks blagger for the straight answer. Was that in the UK? - I confess to looking at a couple of places in Florida, where I should be much better off with the weather.

I have been told there's credit against the FI(R) if you have the CRI, but haven't seen anything written saying that? Can anybody confirm or deny?

G

[gijoe]

PM sent to you.

['India-Mike]

I have a purpose for an FI(R), training non-pilots in flight testing for universities.


Don't want to broaden the argument but why need any flying training qualification for that activity? An AOC yes, but FI or CRI I wouldn't have thought so.

Regards the 'teaching to teach' element of an instructor course, I learned that being a university lecturer dealing with class sizes of up to 300 ill-mannered, ill-behaved undergraduates with the attention span of a gnat, is completely different from one-to-one teaching of a highly motivated and committed individual. The 'teach-to-teach' element of my FI course was therefore indispensible and with hindsight I'm glad I didn't want any exemption from that element of my training.

I'd say do the FI(R) course - will allow you to take advantage one day of that CPL

[S-Works]

I have a purpose for an FI(R), training non-pilots in flight testing for universities.

An FI(R) wont allow you to do that.

Also remember as a restricted FI you will need a supervising instructor.

What you have described so far fits the profile of a CRI.

As some one who hold an FI and CRI SE/ME and with little involvement in PPL training I can tell you that the CRI is actually the privilege I use 98% of the time. FI is kept current purely to keep Examiner ratings in line.

[Whopity]

An FI(R) won't allow you to do that. Yes it will!

What you have described so far fits the profile of a CRI. No it doesn't, they are "non pilots" so it must be an FI or an FI(R) under supervision.

[S-Works]

Whopity, please show me where I can find the 'flight test pilots rating' that genghis is referring to and the rating that is required to teach it.

As far as I can see it is a rating that does not exist and therefore does not even need an instructor rating....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Whopity, please show me where I can find the 'flight test pilots rating' that genghis is referring to and the rating that is required to teach it.

As far as I can see it is a rating that does not exist and therefore does not even need an instructor rating....

Thereby sits much of the problem. There is at present no TP rating under EASA (they are threatening one, but it's being actively opposed by many of the test flying community - and even if they lose, is years away). Generally test flying approvals are for particular organisations and jobs.

I can't, looking at EU-Ops, see any reason why as a CPL holder I can't fly with engineering students under an AOC to demonstrate flight test techniques, have them take measurements, and even handle the controls(?) There does seem a perception however that only an FI can have paying "passengers" handle the controls - I suspect that this is cobblers, but you know how these myths perpetuate. I've no concerns about my ability to persuade anybody that I'm competent to demonstrate flight test techniques.

G

[S-Works]

There is nothing preventing you do as you suggest now. A CRI would add some teaching and supervising knowledge to the mix.

Just ignore the FI who seem to think anything but being an FI does not fit the bill. The CRI is a great rating and actually suits a good chunk of the non PPL ab initio training that goes on. As I mentioned earlier it is also a damn sight easier to gain and maintain.

You have little to lose and a lot to gain by exploring that route first.

[blagger]

Genghis - it was in the UK at Wellesbourne, easy access to open airspace was a bonus as well in order to max the training value. From some of what I've heard I wouldn't touch a US course personally; the training you get from your FIC needs to be the best available I would suggest - I would go for reputation and standards over cost and location every time, as hard as it may seem at choices time.

Bose - did you have to do the full 100hrs ab-initio instruction / 25 PPL course solo sign-offs as a CRI holder / experienced instructor when you got the FI added?

Does anyone know where there is a reference for 3 hours off an FIC for a CRI holder? I had to do the full FI course and I have advised other people that is the situation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Regards the 'teaching to teach' element of an instructor course, I learned that being a university lecturer dealing with class sizes of up to 300 ill-mannered, ill-behaved undergraduates with the attention span of a gnat, is completely different from one-to-one teaching of a highly motivated and committed individual. The 'teach-to-teach' element of my FI course was therefore indispensible and with hindsight I'm glad I didn't want any exemption from that element of my training.


I'm also a qualified Jiu Jitsu instructor - hopefully teaching flying sits somewhere in between? Although, unlike Jiu Jitsu, I'd miss not being actively encouraged to try and cause pain and unjury in my students. :E

(Seriously, I actually find martial arts and flying are remarkably similar disciplines - a combined requirement for physical and mental dexterity, lots of arcane theory and odd names for things, and if you don't concentrate 100% on it at the time, you get hurt.)

G

[S-Works]

Bose - did you have to do the full 100hrs ab-initio instruction / 25 PPL course solo sign-offs as a CRI holder / experienced instructor when you got the FI added?

No. I was given credit for already holding the CRI. I was also converting an ICAO Flight Instructor rating at the same time though of which I was also given virtually full credit for.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There is nothing preventing you do as you suggest now. A CRI would add some teaching and supervising knowledge to the mix.

Just ignore the FI who seem to think anything but being an FI does not fit the bill. The CRI is a great rating and actually suits a good chunk of the non PPL ab initio training that goes on. As I mentioned earlier it is also a damn sight easier to gain and maintain.

You have little to lose and a lot to gain by exploring that route first.


You are confirming my prejudices Bose, and I'm going to pursue that - test flying instruction using the CPL (+ 20 years test flying experience!), and try and quietly add a CRI in slow time. Since I can't see my doing this for about a year, getting the CRI before then is straightforward enough.

G

[FlyingForFun]

Genghis,

Just want to add my voice to the list of people who thinks you don't actually need any instructor qualification to do what you're talking about doing.

A CRI can onl instruct people with a license, so would be no use to you. But an instructor qualification is only required if training towards the grant of a license or rating.

In general, there is nothing to stop you from allowing anyone else to handle the controls.... although if you're operating under an AOC, I don't know if that would still hold true. Surely the best thing would be to see if you can incorporate into your AOC some formal procedures for allowing your passengers to handle the controls? Then it would be very clear that it was allowed.

As for the comparison with martial arts, I've certainly wanted to inflict pain on one or two students.... but I've resisted the temptation so far!!!

FFF
--------------

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's obviously getting late, as I'm now wondering if there's scope to offer self defence (or pain infliction?) courses for flying instructors - thus bringing my two obsessions under one umbrella?

G

[Whopity]

I probably missread Genghis's first post to read giving flight instruction to engineering students.

There is no Flight Test rating, but the proposed one is for pilots anyway, if it ever comes to be. Under EASA a CRI would be able to teach for it as would an FI if they held the Flight Test rating.

If you are training Flight Test observers, which sounds more like the case then, no rating would be necessary however; it would not qualifyfor the exemptions granted to a flying school and would require an AOC. That is why it is probably simpler to operate on the basis of using a Flight Instructor. On this basis, a CRI could not do it as the student has no licence.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Training FTOs is sort of the game, in reality it's giving baby aeronautical engineers experience of what (a) flying, and (b) flight testing are about in a way they're not going to get in the classroom or a simulator. (The Royal Aeronautical Society, which approves aero-eng degrees mandates that they get this experience in a real flight environment, and long may it be so).

I think the major issue I'm up against, is that the majority of schools - which is what are being used by the handful of universities who don't just subcontract this training out to Cranfield, don't have AOCs. So, as a CPL I can do this within an AOC organisation, but even with a CRI I can't do it within a school because the vast majority of the students don't have licences.

G

[S-Works]

Genghis, you need to understand that what you are doing is not training towards the grant of a licence or rating. It does not need an Instructor rating at all! However holding a CRI at least gives you the elements of teaching that would be useful when demonstrating and supervising people doing this.

Whilst there may be a test pilot rating in the future under EASA, that will still require the candidate to actually be a pilot and hold a licence in order to add the rating. Therefore a CRI should be able to do that as well.

We are getting way to tied up in rules that don't exist and ratings that don't exists!

A CRI is ideally suited to what you are suggesting.

[Whopity]

Ghenghis, what you propose is no different to trial lesson. How are these activities funded? Presumably, the candidate pays to attend a course which includes practical insruction in an aeroplane. If so, you are in the realms of public transport and an AOC is required. If a benevolent pilot flies the guys for free, its a private flight, no problem you can do it. If its done on the bases of a trial lesson you need an FI; that will be much simpler and cheaper than having an AOC and will be more flexible. Most participants of trial lessons are not training for the issue of a licence, but they could be, and on the basis of the "could be" a FI is required, thereby gaining an exemption from the requirement to have an AOC. As they are not pilots, a TP rating is irrelevant anyway.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Which does bring me right back to my original assumptions and question !

G

[Whopity]

I would have thought that its up to the university to deceide which way its going to conduct its flying. No doubt cost will be a major consideration and of course under EASA it will need an approval whichever way it does it. If thats what you want to do, you will have to qualify to suit their chosen method.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would have thought that its up to the university to deceide which way its going to conduct its flying. No doubt cost will be a major consideration and of course under EASA it will need an approval whichever way it does it. If thats what you want to do, you will have to qualify to suit their chosen method.

There's a few incorrect assumptions behind your post, which I'd be happy to chat about on PMs if you like, but don't really change my position.

- Ultimately however, as you have confirmed, and I said originally, it looks like I could do with an FI(R) !


So, back to where I started, any other views on credits for CRI, and where/how long it's do-able? There are a couple of places in Florida doing this, where clearly it's possible to get a good flying rate - has anybody used any of these / have any informed views?

G

[S-Works]

Whoppity, sorry but you are going to have to explain how this would constitute a trial lesson? The whole trail lesson assumption and the reason it can be done from an RTF rather than requiring an AOC for joy riding is that the training is towards the issue of a licence or rating even if we never see the punter again.

In the example that Genghis has given there is no intention to gain a licence. Therefore at worst it needs an AOC.

I also still maintain a restricted FI is a waste of time for him. Who is going to supervise for a start?

[Whopity]

I thought the answer was quite simple, you get an AOC at vast cost and the trainee engineer cannot touch the controls, or you conduct it on the basis of a flying training at much less cost with greater flexability. I only said it was comparable with a trial lesson which also seeks to give air experience with the ability to control the aircraft. You pays your money and takes the choice. Neither way is ideal, so the alternative is to go to the CAA and propose a different system - think of the cost and time it will take!

[Genghis the Engineer]

The problem is, you're both right.

Technically speaking, the rating to do what I want to do doesn't exist. So, there are two ways to do it:

(1) Work with whatever organisation I'm doing it for/with to get an AOC and do it with my CPL

(2) Get an FI(R), and either be supervised by an FI who is a TP, or simply an FI who only cares that I'm not doing anything dangerous and appreciates that what I'm doing is a bit specialist, but probably out of their education.

I'd already looked at (1), and whilst I'd not discount it, it's slow and expensive. (2) is probably cheaper and faster - but gives me the problem of the time available to go and do the course.

G

[FlyingForFun]

Bose,

There is nothing written down as to what the contents of a trial lesson should be, and there is no requirement that someone who undertakes a trial lesson must go on to obtain a license.

The only thing that is required is that it is a lesson (there must be some element of teaching) which introduces the "student" to flying.

I have done trial lessons with people who would be completely incapable of getting a medical (one with Alzheimers and one with a serious mental illness to give you two extreme examples - two of the most rewarding flights I've done, but that's not the point). But both of my students learnt something, used the controls, and gained an insight into flying. I have done trial lessons with people who were too scared to touch the controls (although with a bit of coaxing I could usually get them to handle the aircraft for at least a few minutes). I have done trial lessons where the "student" was more interested in photographing their house than using the controls.

What Genghis is suggesting would absolutely come under the definition of a trial lesson. Without a doubt it is a lesson - far more so than most of the trial lessons I've ever done. Without a doubt it would introduce the "student" to flying. And, if he were a FI(R) and the student chose to go on to get a PPL, it would count towards the required hours.

The CAA are very clear about this, too. It is explained in their leaflet "Is my flight legal? A guide to the Air Operator's Certificate" (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf): A ‘trial lesson’ is simply a first lesson which may or may not be followed by subsequent lessons. It follows that it is an instructional flight and should be conducted as such; and an abbreviated exercise..... should be taught.

FFF
------------

[WestWind1950]

I think we're starting to run around in circles here....

If the trial lesson is just that, an introduction into flying, then the person giving the "lesson" must be seated in the left seat (or the sear for the PIC). Thus, the other person is only a passenger (and who can see if that person touches the controls or not? the CAA is not seated behind you watching). If the pilot giving the lesson sits in the RIGHT seat (passsenger seat), then he/she must be a FI and the person in the left seat is a potential student, with medical, etc. or a CFI and the person in the left seat already has a licence.

So, to be able to instructor/demonstrate from the right seat to non licence holders, a FI (whether restricted or not) is needed.

That's the way I see it.....

P.S. if something goes wrong and you are in the right seat without the needed qualification (FI/CRI) and the person in the left seat has no medical or licence, the insurance might bust you for sure.... :(

[Whopity]

I'm pleased to say that there are no rules as to which seat different people sit in, so the PIC can be left alone to make an executive decision for once.

[S-Works]

I am sorry but I have yet to be convinced that allowing an engineer to handle controls during an unrelated course can be construed as a trial lesson.

The intent of a trial lesson is purely to conduct training towards the issue of a license. We are getting into the grey areas of joy rides being hidden by trial lessons here.

I really do not see the need for anything at all in the case that Genghis is describing. If they are being flown as part of an unrelated course and are given the controls to experience practically what is being talked about as part of there studies then I do not see how it can be contrived as a flying lesson.

We are stepping into some very grey areas.....

[BEagle]

Whopity, I think that there is some ruling in Germany about the mandatory seat to be occupied by the PIC (unless it's an FI/CRI giving flight instruction).

Unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense, but they do like their rules!

[mad_jock]

It was the arse stuhl technisch law BEagle

[WestWind1950]

yes, it's actually regulated in Germany and I would think in other countries as well. The seat of PIC is normally the seat on which the plane is according to the flight manual flown solo. In those cases where it is not specifically set, then on normal planes the left seat, helicopters the right seat, and on gliders and most tandum planes the front.

It may seem to some of you "over regulation" but I think it sensible. 1st, there is no doubt after an incident who was PIC and thus responsible; 2nd, many pilots used to flying on the left seat have difficulty when suddenly flying from the right.... which is why instructors have extra training for that.

If just any non-instructor could sit anywhere... geeez, why even have instructors to begin with? Just let experienced pilots do the training .... sorry, I think that's :ugh:

[mad_jock]

H'mm which would be the best seat for me west wind if my FI rating ran out?

I have 1100 hours in the RHS and haven't flown in the LHS in a spam can for 6 years now and 900 hours. I have done 2 SEP LST's both of which done in the RHS. Some would say I would need conversion training to go back into the LHS.

And its not in the UK.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The captain must absolutely ensure that the aeroplane will be properly controlled throughout the flight.

Whether that's from the left, right, front, or rear seat surely in most cases is up to his or her judgment and should be being regulated in some crude "fits all" measure by people who are not taking individual responsibility for that flight.

Germany is the country which requires test pilots to have passed a type rating in a new type before they are allowed to make the first (ever) flight of that type, yet allows ultralights to be certified on the basis they they'll never see more than 77kg in the pilots seat. All things considered, I don't think that they are a shining example of sensible regulation, even compared to the UK.

G

[WestWind1950]

@mad_jock
some regional authorities say that, of the 6 hours as PIC needed for SEP renewal, flight instructors must do them in the left seat! Now THAT is going overboard! But the JAR's leave a lot for interpretation, especially the German translation :rolleyes:

77kg in the pilots seat? Not that I know of... there's a MTOM of 472,5 kg (including rescue parachut) but if there's a max for the pilots seat, then it's in the plane's flight manual and as far as I know NOT a regulation. I have known flight instuctures and pilots with 80+ kg who fly UL's! With me it's the opposite problem... I'm TOO light-weight (50 kg). :O

[mad_jock]

To be fair westie I can sort of understand that.

Its very rare I touch the controls while instructing and although I have the required amount of PIC/hours for getting signed off again this year actually flying a SEP aircraft its maybe a couple of demo approaches and 20mins worth of upper air demo's.

[Whopity]

some regional authorities say that, of the 6 hours as PIC needed for SEP renewal,That is classic output from the band of bone heads who have got themselves into the aviation rule making group. They wanted Balloons to have Air Speed Indicators, and all aircraft to land into wind! Even the CAA have forgotten what they told the industry pre JAR-FCL; comments in their latest guidance letter displays complete ignorance of it.

[WestWind1950]

They wanted Balloons to have Air Speed Indicators, and all aircraft to land into wind!

LOL you've gotta be kidding.... though I'm afraid you're not.

Have you read the draft for ATO's? No more registered schools, only ATO's... and the requirments for aerodromes ...... must have ATC!! :ugh:

[BillieBob]

and the requirments for aerodromes ...... must have ATC!!The requirement for ATC is not in hard law but in an AMC and so would be easily dealt with, provided an individual member state is prepared to accept an alternative method of communication (e.g. A/G). However, Part-OR is no more and its provisions will somehow now be inserted into Part-FCL. A cynical mind might draw the conclusion that this is a method of slipping Part-OR and -AR into law without any more embarrassing scrutiny. So, once again, with barely 12 months to go, everything is up for grabs and chaos reigns supreme in the corridors of EASA.

Actually, the current registered facilities should be more concerned about the requirements for safety management and quality systems than any spurious requirement for ATC.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Depends what is really meant by ATC I suspect.

G

[Whopity]

the current registered facilities should be more concerned about the requirements for safety managementI think a multi layered approach is the answer, it obviously works for DHL!

[RVR800]

:) Genghis - As a Univerity Lecturer the teaching and Learning aspect of FI(R) would I feel be more appropriate to your needs..

[cgwhitemonk11]

This is an old thread but I'm hoping someone can shed some light for me on the CRI rating. Basically I fly a single engine skydive aircraft, but next season I will most likely have to train my replacement as I hopefully move on to bigger and better things. He or she will need to be supervised for at least 40-50 hours depending on their level. Assuming I am in the LHS for another 40-50 hours before they are let near the hotseat, if I had a CRI could I log this as instruction time? I can't see why not.

I have about 3 months of down time coming up and am thinking of trying to get the CRI.

So am I correct and if so where would one go and get it.

Would appreciate any help.

[TheOddOne]

Try The Pilot Centre at Denham, it's where I did mine, brilliant FI school, test with Carol Cooper from Andrewsfield.

Suggest you look up the pre-entry requirements but I believe they are 300 hours inc. 30 hours on type prior to commencing course.

Cheers,
TOO

[Whopity]

if I had a CRI could I log this as instruction time? I can't see why not.A CRI rating entitles you to train a pilot for a type or class rating including differences training. You don't say what the SE aircraft is but it will be either SEP or SET. It will not take you 50 -60 hours to train a pilot for differences or even the class. Holding a CRI rating does not entitle you to log hours whilst another qualified pilot flies the aircraft. The 50-60 hours you refer to is role training not flight training!

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't say that whopity it may be a line training role for an operation. Which would be instructing.

I have seen it work like that for 2 AOC operations and the time logged with full approval of the FOI.

[Whopity]

with full approval of the FOI.In which case it will be properly documented and the answer to the original question lies in whether this is an official procedure, that is conducted in accordance with an operations manual, or an assumption that by virtue of holding a CRI rating you can log the time anyway. I would have thought that in the event of an accident, the procedures should be clearly laid out.

[mad_jock]

I have never seen how to log hours in an ops manual.

I wasn't part of the single crew ops so I didn't see there part B.

And the hours were logged as PICUS and the line trainer logged them as PIC and instructor.

[cgwhitemonk11]

thanks for the responses

SEP just to clarify, and the only reason im talking about 40 to 50 hours is because thats what i would have done myself when taking on the role at the beginning.

That is potentially less than 2 weeks of supervision depending on weather. And quite seriously if the opportunity were to go to a newbie who has never flown in bad weather let alone with a full load of skydivers onboard, its a bare minimum.

There are also insurance issues in terms of minimum total time for newbies and this could potentially offer a way to get guys above that if they were just short.

So as i see it if its outlined in the company manual as differences training it is possible?

thank you for the help

[mad_jock]

If its in a company manual that you require it I can't see a problem although the Irish CAA might take a different view to the UK one.

To be honest I am fully expecting Whopity to come back and say the way I describe is completely wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

It was years ago now and the pilots in question all have a couple of thousand hours LHS seat in muticrew aircraft so the fact that they more than likely got there ATPL's with dodgy hours is a bit of a mute point.

[gijoe]

What is the aircraft type?

[mad_jock]

it doesn't matter about the type if it fits in a class

[gijoe]

My question was nothing to do with not understanding that it is nothing to do with Type or Class...Oh so quick to condemn...

CG,

What type of aircraft is it?

[cgwhitemonk11]

its a Gippsland Airvan so SEP.

I do appreciate everyones comments both positive and negative.

My reasoning is this, I'm not trying to get more hours or make more money, the aircraft is going to be flown by me regardless and I wouldn't charge for the ride if I could put somebody in the seat.

Why do it? Because I'm sick of meeting guys who are struggling in a normal job trying to save up 150 euro once a month to pay for an hour bashing circuts in a ****ty 152. Or worse, the guys who havent flown in 2-3 years who come to me with nothing valid and basically no chance of getting them a job. I'm certainly not gonna get them a job as they are not employable, but if I can help by actually giving them some relevant loggable experience then I would.

Someone mentioned to me it is impossible as it is more of a line training role than an 'instructors' role... so whats the problem? How is it better to be sitting in a PA28 with a student buzzing around in circles than to actually try get people current and teach them how to do a job in a fully IR aircraft? If I cant get them a job maybe some other skydive centre will?

Now I have met some opposition to this idea already but I am willing to argue it, to the authorities if necessary. Like all things they haven't thought of before they will immediately over-react and say no, but if I covered all the paperwork, had it linked to an ATO, properly studied the regs and had training procedures drawn up, I would at least have a good case.

Now my idea is potentially completely out of reach and unrealistic... but isn't that the great thing about ideas? :)

[Duchess_Driver]

NFC at Weston are capable of doing this for you.

[gijoe]

The Airvan is very friendly and much easier to learn dropping on than the 206.

Send me a PM.