View Full Version : EASA aerobatic rating
17th Jul 2012, 10:28
Aerobatics will be regulated under EASA.
Looks like the course for aerobatic rating will involve a minimum of 5 hours flying (FCL.800 Subpart 1).
As for instructing, a CRI will be required (FCL.905 CRI CRI)-With or without an FI(A)- unless like in some countries where it already exists (France) the aerobatic instructor rating should be converted, which at the time it is not.
I have inquired in Switzerland (EASA since 9 april 2012) about the CRI in question and have been told by CAA that there is no relevant EASA complyant course in this respects yet.
Does anyone know something about this forthcoming EASA aerobatic CRI course syllabus since it is not described under FCL.905 CRI CRI.
Furthermore it looks like the competence check must be under the supervision of a "Qualified" FI ( Qualified = an FI with 500Hrs instructing).
Does he have to have 500 hours instructing Aeros??? In this case will not be so easy...
Thanks for help !!!!
17th Jul 2012, 11:11
unless like in some countries where it already exists (France) the aerobatic instructor rating should be converted,There is no need to convert anything, either a FI or a CRI will be able to teach for the aerobatic rating, provided they hold it themselves. As it is not planned until 2015 there is some time to go before any course emerge.
Interestingly, there has never been a syllabus for the SE CRI (SE) rating! JAR-FCL Part 1 only contained a CRI (ME) syllabus which is all about asymmetric operation. EASA simply copied the CRI (ME) syllabus into Part FCL and because nobody at EASA knows what they are doing, they did not notice that there is no syllabus for the CRI (SE) rating. Most FIC providers ask the potential CRI what they intend to do with the rating and model a course around those basic requirements, adding it to the 25 hour teaching and learning package. You can't teach much in 3 hours flying. As the primary function of the CRI is to train for additional Class or Type ratings, the syllabus will always be orientated to that aim.
17th Jul 2012, 12:21
Thanks for update Whopity,
That means an FI(A) with aerobatic rating will be enough ???
That is a bit confusing, have been in contact with EASA, and am waiting for a reply to some queries from their part (Mr Borgmeier, licencing dept.).
He said to me time ago For those countries who have it: Italy / France..Where a (National) aerobatic instructor qualification exists in addition to the normal rating, that should be endorsed in licences when those become EASA. Therefore aerobatic instructor needs to be added to FI licence...
So far have found out at my expense that those national Aerobatic instructor ratings (For those holding them) are not recognised outside state of emission. i.e. italians require to embark the whole (National) aerobatic instruction course for an FI, regardless of the hours and foreign (French 2è cycle) aero instructor rating, this til 2015...
Does that mean that once EASA licences will replace JAR ones one will have to wait 2015 even holding these qualifications ???
It would help to find some easy clear explanations, but looks like local CAA's and EASA are at a loss and don't know what to say
17th Jul 2012, 14:41
that means an FI(A) with aerobatic rating will be enough ???That is correct. In the UK, there is an aerobatic add-on (or rather limitation removal) for instructors, but there is no aerobatic rating for pilots, so legally, they did not need to be an instructor to teach aerobatics. As you say each State has different arrangements that are National, there was no JAA aerobatic rating for a pilot or an instructor. As EASA now has an Aerobatic rating for pilots, the biggest problem will be working out grandfather rights for those who currently do it with no rating. Until the rating is finally establish, there will only be a limited demand to train for it. Anyone who qualifies for this rating under grandfather rights and is also an instructor, will be able to teach for it. There is no specific Aerobatic Instructor Qualification under EASA, just the assumption that if you hold the pilot rating and an instructor qualification you can teach it. Not a necessarily safe assumption!
Some books here (http://www.ron-jenkins-aviation-services.eu/books/)
17th Jul 2012, 14:59
Hi again Whopity,
What a small world, in the link you submitted to me, there are manuals from Roy Jenkins, with whom incidentally I was in touch few years ago at JAR's in Bonn by email. Tried to contact him after a while, but email bounced, I suppose he was no longer there...He was of great support to me, and now am in touch with Mr Borgmeier, who kindly replies queries but takes a bit long.
EASA does not seem to grasp at this point any of the technicalities referring to this topic, and they refer me to local CAA's which in turn are at a loss and don't know what to answer, other than for the time being, due to Opt out's will retain their national prerogatives well past EASA enforcement.
So everything is at a standstill, nobody makes a move and everything is delayed. And jar Caa's decline to endorse national aerobatic instructor rating made in another Jar country for those who have them (France to Italy).
18th Jul 2012, 07:19
EASA does not seem to grasp at this point any of the technicalitiesNot surprising when they do not have any technical knowledge or qualifications. They are just rule making mechanics, shoveling rules around with no insight as to the reason or consequences. EASA assumes that if we have enough rules, it must be safe! In the Biblical sense: "Forgive them for they know not what they doeth"
18th Jul 2012, 11:19
There is no specific Aerobatic Instructor Qualification under EASA, just the assumption that if you hold the pilot rating and an instructor qualification you can teach it.
Not strictly true. Under EASA there is no specific Aerobatic Instructor course required, but the instructor will have to demonstrate the ability to instruct aerobatics to a FIC Instructor before they may instruct for the Aerobatic Rating.
FCL.905.FI FI – Privileges and conditions
The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(f) a towing or aerobatic rating, provided that such privileges are held and the FI has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below;
FCL.905.CRICRI – Privileges and conditions
(a) The privileges of a CRI are to instruct for:
(2) a towing or aerobatic rating for the aeroplane category, provided the CRI
holds the relevant rating and has demonstrated the ability to instruct for
that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with FCL.905.FI(i).
An "FI qualified in accordance with FCL.905.FI(i)" is currently referred to as a FIC Instructor in the UK.
18th Jul 2012, 12:55
Interesting, now the whole issue is where to get a "Qualified" instructor ( More than 500 hours instructing time, am I correct )? to pass the test.
And those 500 hours instructing , need to be in appropriate field (Aero/Mountain/Towing) ???
If not what happens if the "Qualified" instructor has no experience in those fields ???
18th Jul 2012, 14:34
Interesting, now the whole issue is where to get a "Qualified" instructor ( More than 500 hours instructing time, am I correct )? to pass the test.In the same place you would get an instructor to teach for any other instructor certificate.And those 500 hours instructing , need to be in appropriate field (Aero/Mountain/Towing) ???No, where did you get that idea?If not what happens if the "Qualified" instructor has no experience in those fields ???Since a person may not instruct (FCL.915(b)(1)) or examine (FCL.1000(a)(1)) for any qualification unless he/she holds that qualification, this should not be a problem. You simply need to find an instructor, qualified to instruct for the issue of an instructor rating, who is also qualified to instruct for the aerobatic rating. This will apply to many of the current 'FIC' instructors and most FIEs
18th Jul 2012, 15:19
So in this case any "Qualified" instructor (TT Time instructing= 500 +) who holds the rating would do.
To give you an example - A bit off topic but very relevant- At our school, the FI(A) course is delayed because the only "Qualilfied" instructor does not hold tailwheel extension and experience to practice spins with students in the appropriate aircraft.
This "Qualified" instructor also has not got spin training experience.
The one with aerobatic rating is not "Qualified" i.e. he has not got the 500+ hours instructing.
And to become FIC it looks like the 500+ TT applies regardless of qualifications and ratings
The bottom line is that there are loads of people holding all kinds of qualifications, IFR/multi engine/ night/Iri but when it comes to the basics there's nobody around
18th Jul 2012, 17:38
The UK has been working on this for a while. There is a joint CAA/Industry working group which has worked to ensure as seamless as possible a chnage to this invention of EASA by 2015.
We have been asked to provide information to EASA at the next FCL_PG meeting.
All 'grandfathering' has been drafted, as have all other aspects of the Aerobatic Rating, including instructional requirements. The AOPA Basic Aerobatic Syllabus will be aligned with the requirements of the EASA Aerobatic Rating; in fact the CAA has had the AOPA draft since January 2012 and we're still waiting for a response.....
We also have a key objective - the deletion of the ridiculous '40 hrs PIC since licence issue' before anyone may be granted the Aerobatic Rating, after completing the course. You could have 100 hrs of dual aerobatic training, but unless you've logged 40 hrs of aimless 'hamburger run' PIC time, you will be unable to apply for the Aerobatic Rating. For which you can thank ze Tchermans.....
Is the option of asking them to Please F*&% Off still on the table? It's crap like this that makes me view EASA with such complete and utter contempt. Surely a permanent exception or something along those lines could be filed? The sooner we are out, the better. :mad:s!
18th Jul 2012, 20:34
DB6 your "option" has been used and abused, but to no avail...
Trust me , EASA does not care, local CAA's - The ones i've been dealing with- Don't care, Nobody cares. This is it, period.
At the end, all of them just ignore you you're just a nuisance.
What surprises me, besides these isolated personal cases, is that there is no reaction that I am aware of from the big corporate interests.
The way I see it this EASA bureaucracy and the insane regulations it produces is very likely to cause great harm to the industry and the whole sector, yet there does not seem to be any reaction.
How can big companies, airlines, manufacturers, you name them, not have an army of lawyers to deal with the implications and consequences these rules will have on their operations ???
18th Jul 2012, 20:50
Maybe that's because beyond the emotive points which are generally few, there is actually not that much wrong and given a little time the glitches can be worked out if people are prepared to work at it rather than complain. Anyone remember JAR?
18th Jul 2012, 22:08
Having had a lengthy discussion with Markal, it is apparent that the problems are not entirely based upon EASA requirements. The issue is that there are a number of intransigent European States with their own National rules; they do not accept cross boarder qualifications and whilst EASA is slowly being adopted there is an enormous vacumn where qualified instructors are not being allowed to exercise their privileges. We all know that certain States have not accepted JAA licences from other States and it appears that nothing has changed with EASA. Everything is on hold until 2015, which doesn't help those trying to operate across boarder due to their location.Anyone remember JAR?Yes and after 12 years it has failed to set a common European standard, what makes us think EASA will do any better?
20th Jul 2012, 11:00
I can assure you that I am not trying to argue or blame out of some frustration or emotive reaction.
You state a point: " ...If people are prepared to work at it"
And this is precisely the issue; There must be two sides willing to cooperate, when CAA's just ignore you, what are the options left ???
The preambule to the EEC ministerial decree of April 9, 2012 enforcing EASA acknowledged and underwritten by members, calls for:
"..Sincere cooperation among states to ensure a honest and smooth transition..." In my case, just the opposite seems to be happening.
Would be interesting to find out what kind of measures some CAA's have taken to allow for a "smooth honest transition".....
Whether out of national pride or aversion to relinquish power and authority we are becoming hostages of a perverted system rendering us powerless.
By the way, a bit off topic, Jar transition time span of 12 years was not even enough to be able to draft a common european standard, which led to having to resort to "opt outs"
States are not even able to do their homework...Bureaucracy has never been known for its efficiency...