CTC Fully Sponsored Instructor Program-IFR Hours

[nezzer]

Hi All ,

Can anyone shed any light on the IFR hours required for this program CTC are offering.

I am a FI and have over 1000hrs of instruction and I have held a IMC years before my IR. I have log over 150 hrs of IF Time comprising of teaching Ex19 for the ppl the time I have conducted lessons VMC on top the hours I have done for my IR and IMC flying in my spare time to keep it all fresh.

Now apart from my IR course all the other hours have not been airways flying. I am not sure if I qualifiy for the CTC program and was wondering if anyone could shed any light on this because the way I see it not many average instructors will be able to apply for this.

[Duchess_Driver]

I may be stating the obvious..... but have you tried calling CTC and asking?

[nezzer]

mmm not thought to do that ! :D Just to clear up the obvious I have contacted CTC the lady on the phone could not tell me nor would she put me through to a person who could, told me to email my question but still no reply !! Hence the reason I put the post up !

Thank you

[Whopity]

If CTC are looking for instructors to teach on their integrated course then they will need people who meet the EASA requirement to become an Instrument instructor. This requirement is 200 hours flight time under IFR. Without that you will be of no use to themFCL.905.FI FI — Privileges and conditions
(g) an IR in the appropriate aircraft category, provided that the FI has:
(1) at least 200 hours of flight time under IFR, of which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground time in an FFS, an FTD 2/3 or FNPT II;
(2) completed as a student pilot the IRI training course and has passed an assessment of competence for the IRI certificate What surprises me is that they only want 150, not 200 hours!

Quite clearly this is going to impose a major problem finding future instructors who can teach for the IR. The UK CAA recognised this back in 1998 pre JAA but it appears nobody has learned anything over the last 14 years!

[Mickey Kaye]

50 hours in their sim?

Three of the four instructors at the RF that I work at meet these requirements so you would think we would be ideal to teach for something like the competency based IR.

Yet the CAA have objected on the grounds that only FTO have sufficient experience to teach it.

Obviously this isn't the case..

[EK4457]

This has been done before on another thread. It might be that EASA (and CTC) have got a little mixed up between 'instrument flight' and 'flight under IFR'.

The requirement of 200 hours IFR time for the the IRI does not mention that it has to be with sole reference to instruments (apart from the simulator bit which is optional). Nor does the CTC job advert.

It's actually very easy to fly in accordance with the instrument flight rules in the UK. You don't need an IR and you don't have to file a flight plan. In theory, you can just follow the relevent rules of the air and log your IFR time!

On the other hand, most of the instrument flying during my IR was under the hood whilst flying VFR. In theory this wouldn't count towards the IFR requirement!

I'm sure that this isn't what the very clever eurocrats actually meant when they wrote their new rules. I would *guess* they meant 'instrument flight' instead of IFR. But write it they did.

The upshot is that anyone with about 500 hours or more can claim to have 200 hours IFR and it would be very difficult to prove them wrong. They wouldn't even need an IR.

As for the CTC side of things, ask them to clarify the IFR requirement if you get an interview.

Don't get me started on VFR/IFR at night in the UK. A complete mess.

[Whopity]

I'm sure that this isn't what the very clever eurocrats actually meant when they wrote their new rules. I would *guess* they meant 'instrument flight' instead of IFR. No, the not very clever Eurocrats simply copied it from JAR-FCL 1.330 which has said: "time in accordance with the instrument flight rules" since about 1995. There is no evidence to suggest that the Eurocrats had any comprehension of the process whatsoever.You don't need an IR Maybe not with a UK National Licence but all JAA licences state:JAR–FCL 1.175 Circumstances in which an IR(A) is required
(a) The holder of a pilot licence (A) shall not act in any capacity as a pilot of an aeroplane under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), except as a pilot undergoing skill testing or dual training, unless the holder has an instrument rating (IR(A)) appropriate to the category of aircraft issued in accordance with JAR–FCL.The other issue is that there is absolutely no requirement to log IFR time, so nobody has a record of it anyway.
Yet the CAA have objected on the grounds that only FTO have sufficient experience to teach it.The CAA are only complying with the European rules and have little choice in the matter.

[goldeneaglepilot]

It's an interesting argument - I can understand Mickey's frustration at his school as an RF not meeting the requirements to do the work. However I guess we live in an ever increasingly litigious world where procedures in all respects have to be documented for repeatability and provability. The staffing requirements for such procedures at a RF against an FTO prevent a lot pursuing it through a simple commercial equation. The cost involved in making the step to a FTO as against an RF is not justified for the extra work and income that would come through the door in the short term.

In my opinion its an expensive and difficult step to justify at a small RF, natural evolution of an RF will often see it grow into a FTO, however commercial decisions have to be made.

[Whopity]

In my opinion its an expensive and difficult step to justify at a small RF, natural evolution of an RF will often see it grow into a FTOBut, by 8 April 2015 all RFs will have to transition to an ATO with an approval fee of £1000 for the first 4 hours approval work and £173/hour thereafter. Would it be a reasonable assumption that the number of schools offering PPL training will reduce by 50% or even more?

[Mickey Kaye]

173 quid an hour. Crikes a consultant eye surgeon charges less than that !

Also is it just one grand all in or is it a grand for each approval eg ppl, night and IMC would set you back 3 grand.

[goldeneaglepilot]

My point was the cost / time of implementing the current requirements for an upgrade to FTO is expensive (I would envisage significantly more than the £1000 fee + £173 / hr after 4hrs)

From FCL Standards document 38:


5.2 The application form must be accompanied by the following:
(a) PLD Payment Form SRG 1187 with the relevant fee prescribed in the CAA Scheme of Charges current at the time of application. This form may be obtained from the Personnel Licensing Department Approvals Support Section, or via the CAA web site at www.caa.co.uk. A sample form SRG 1187 is at Annex B for reference.
(b) Training Manual.
(c) Quality Manual.
(d) Evidence of sufficient funding.
(e) CVs (Résumés) for the Head of Training, Chief Ground Instructor (if appointed) and all other training staff.
(f) Details of subject allocations to each theoretical knowledge instructor showing sufficient coverage for the syllabus and number of courses intended. The preferred method of providing this information is in a spreadsheet format as shown at Annex C; an electronic version is available on request.
(g) A detailed management structure with names, qualifications and responsibilities of managerial and instructional staff that will be engaged in activities related to the approval.
(h) A complete set of student study notes, progress tests and examination papers appropriate to the course(s) on offer, including assurance as to the suitability and completeness of the FTO’s theoretical knowledge course material in the form of a Certificate of Compliance (see Annex D).
(i) A description, including floor plans, of the accommodation to be used for both theoretical knowledge instruction and management/administrative support activities.
(j) Evidence of availability of facilities and staff for the course(s) to be conducted if these are not permanently available to the FTO.



The training manual and quality manual (and implementation) will on its own cost a lot both in cash and time.


To implement a quality system at any company is both laborious and expensive. It might seem that it only says and documents the obvious, however it takes a lot more effort/time/cost than people realise at first glance.

[Whopity]

Also is it just one grand all in or is it a grand for each approval eg ppl, night and IMC would set you back 3 grand.
That appears to be the fee for any approval that is not listed in the scheme of charges. MEP is around £500, FIC £700, IR is over £1200 with another £700 if you have a sim, so PPL IMC etc should all group together. The scheme of charges looks as if it was picked up off the floor after being dropped, as it lacks any form of coherence.

[Mickey Kaye]

Couldn't give us a link could you.

Shocking state of affairs when the cost of a rf goes from nothing to thousands of pounds for NO evidence of improved safety.

[Whopity]

ORS 5 No:269 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/269PLSAmd.pdf)
Even "Call me Dave" wants a referendum now!

[XiRho]

The other issue is that there is absolutely no requirement to log IFR time, so nobody has a record of it anyway.

In the interests of confirming my own understanding, I thought there was requirement to log IFR time but not to log actual instrument time (unless it is under training).

Part-FCL.050 and the ANO require a flight crew member to keep a personal flying log
in which at least the following particulars are recorded:

<CLIP>

Operational conditions, namely if the operation takes place at night, or is conducted
under instrument flight rules.

<CLIP>

Column 12: the Remarks column may be used to record details of the flight at the holder’s discretion. The following entries,however,
should always be made:
• instrument flight time undertaken as part of the training for a licence or rating

[BillieBob]

Where in the ANO does it say anything about recording flight under IFR? Part-FCL is not yet in effect in the UK and so is not yet relevant. As Whopity quite rightly says, there is (present tense) no legal obligation to record flight time under IFR in the UK nor has there ever been a reason for doing so.

[XiRho]

Of course, sorry.

I have been trying to get used to the PART-FCL and have managed to confuse it with what is current.

It is an odd change to make I would have thought. Will the IFR/4 = IF be used to convert post PART-FCL implementation, seeing as there is no need to log IF and IFR time?

[Whopity]

Will the IFR/4 = IF be used to convert post PART-FCL implementationNo it won't, see AIC W13/2012 (http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-F3393C2FCF78AD71519178F1876F05B3/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIC/W/013-2012/EG_Circ_2012_W_013_en_2012-02-23.pdf)

The CAA introduced the 1:4 rule because they employed pilots who understood that 200 hours of flight in accordance with IFR was both unverifiable and irrelevant. Looking at Para 3.2 it is apparent that the author of the AIC has little understanding of IFR anyway3.2 Applications from 1 July 2012 for privileges granted under Part-FCL requiring the individual to have completed a minimum number
of flying hours in an aircraft in accordance with IFR will only be accepted where the required experience has been gained in flight in
circumstances requiring compliance with IFR.There is no JAA or EASA requirement for the IFR experience to be gained under the quoted circumstances.

Once upon a time AICs were checked for inaccuracies before they were released, now it seems they are either not checked, or they no longer employ staff with sufficient knowledge to spot the mistakes.

[XiRho]

Shows how well this has all been thought out.

[nick14]

As I understand it, as of the 8/04/12 my JAR-FCL licence automatically became an EASA Part FCL licence.

Now this raises a few questions, wrt flight tests, do the examiners now have to be authorised by the state of licence issue or inform the competent authority and recieve a briefing, before conducting a test on a JAR-FCL(Part FCL) licence holder? I seem to remember that the date of Part FCL coming into law is different depending on the authority. CAA is November am I correct?

Im still trying to get my head around the whole structure of EASA.

Regulation 216/2008 is the Law and powers granted by the European court, but what are the 5 Annexes?

We then have the 2 aircrew regulations 1178/2011 and 290/2012 which includes part FCL amoung others. Where do they fit into the structure?

Where does EU Ops fit in to alll of this?

Thanks for any help

[BillieBob]

Nick14 – It’s not surprising that you are having trouble getting your head around the EASA regulations structure as they keep changing it! Essentially, however, it is reasonably straightforward.

At the top of the structure is Regulation 218/2008 (the Basic Regulation) which, as you say, has been EU law for about 4 years. The Basic Regulation has 5 annexes:

Annex I – Essential requirements for airworthiness referred to in Article 5
Annex II – Aircraft referred to in Article 4(4) (i.e. Annex II aircraft)
Annex III – Essential requirements for pilot licensing referred to in Article 7
Annex IV – Essential requirements for air operations referred to in Article 8
Annex V – Criteria for qualified entities referred to in Article 13


Below the Basic Regulation are a number of ‘Enabling Regulations’, each dealing with a different area of EASA’s responsibility. At present, seven of these have been enacted into EU law:

Initial Airworthiness (Regulation 1702/2003)
Continuing Airworthiness (Regulation 2042/2003)
Air Traffic Controller Licensing (Regulation 805/2011)
ATM/ANS Oversight (Regulation 1034/2011)
ANS Providers (Regulation 1035/2011)
AUR and ACAS II (Regulation 1332/2011)
Air Crew [sic] (Regulation 1178/2011 amended by Regulation 290/2012)


Each of the enabling regulations also has annexes and the Aircrew Regulation has seven:

Annex I – Part-FCL
Annex II – Conditions for the conversion of existing national licences
Annex III – Conditions for the acceptance of licences issued by or no behalf of third countries
Annex IV – Part-MED
Annex V – Part-CC (Cabin Crew)
Annex VI – Part ARA (Authority Requirements)
Annex VII – Part-ORA (Organisation Requirements)


The Aircrew Regulation became EU law on 8 April 2012 but member states were permitted to delay implementation of the Annexes by up to 12 months. The UK initially elected to implement them on 1 July but, having failed to meet its own deadline, delayed implementation until 17 September. Until then, the UK is continuing to comply with JAR-FCL except where the Aircrew Regulation does not permit it (e.g. the arrangements for crediting of ex-military aircrew).

The enabling regulation for Air Operations is currently being considered by the EASA Committee of the European Commission (known as ‘comitology’) and is due to become law towards the end of this year.

So far as examiners authorised by states other than the state of licence issue of the candidate are concerned, they will need to inform the competent authority of the state of licence issue and receive a briefing before conducting any Skill Test, Proficiency Checks or Assessment of Competence. This will not become necessary for UK licensed pilots until 17 September until when the current requirements remain in force.

If you need any further clarification, please feel free to PM me.

[Pitch+Power]

Nick14 - got all that ?
Pretty straight forward eh ..? :sad:

[nick14]

Hmm,

Well that makes more sense now thank you!

The issue we are facing at present is we have a number of pilots operating from different licences. The examiners are all IAA authorised. We have a number of pilots who already have part FCL licences, how do we check them if we don't have the specific authority authorised examiner? There is no procedure to convert an EASA licence into an IAA licence.

Thanks

[BillieBob]

As I said above, the examiner will have to inform the candidate's competent authority of his intention to conduct the test/check/assessment and receive a briefing from them. This assumes, of course, that the candidate's competent authority has implemented the annexes to the Aircrew Regulation.

Note that there is no requirement for the examiner to obtain authorisation from the candidate's competent authority, he must merely inform them of his intention. The competent authority is then required by EU law to provide the necessary briefing.

[Whopity]

and receive a briefing from themInteresting that they haven't briefed the majority of their own examiners for over 12 years!

[nick14]

So what was JAR OPS in EASA terms is now EU-OPS?

Where does that fit into the structure?

Many thanks

[mad_jock]

So can the CAA refuse if they don't pay the money ?

[BillieBob]

What is currently covered by EU-OPS and JAR-OPS 3 will be covered by Annex III (Part-ORO) and Annex IV (Part-CAT) to the Air Operations Regulation.

[nick14]

Ah right, that makes sense as the document I was reading was annex III.

So EU OPS will cease to exist when those regulations come into force then?

[Pitch+Power]

nezzer

did you get an answer yet? ( the thread seems to have drifted from your original question)

[Rosanna]

I applied 3 weeks ago and the Selection team sent me a mail asking me more details about my employment history and that they would give me a result in 10-14 days.
I haven't yet received any other communication, I think that they have received much more applications than they expected.

If I have some news I will let you know :)

[nezzer]

Hi all,

Had a email today from CTC inviting me to attend a interview on the 27th July and guess what ? They want money for the interview and they will throw in a complimentary free lunch lol What is this industry coming to !!

[Pitch+Power]

any updates on this 'scheme'
Did anyone actually figure out the IR hours being asked for?

Be interested to hear from anyone who was succesful for any feedback.

[Pitch+Power]

I see this scheme has appeared again, or similar.

Any FIs know any more ?