PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Forgotten your Username/Password?
PPRuNe Email Register FAQ Calendar Advertise Mark Forums Read

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 22nd June 2008, 22:58   #1 (permalink)
cueeffee
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: channel islands
Posts: 4
Red face CRI Confusion

I am afraid I may be asking a stupid question (or two) - but I am trying to work out exactly what the difference between FI and CRI are. From LASORS I seem to understand that FI is for the issue of a licence from scratch and a CRI is good for Class rating issue for existing licence holders. Yet a CRI does not need an FI rating???!
What I don't undertsand is why being an FI does not automatically confer the CRI 'ticket'. [given teaching for the SEP class that goes with the PPL]The reason I'm asking for help is that in researching jobs I see that 'FI(A) with CRI' is often being stipulated.

Next stupid question - does the removal of No Applied Instrument instruction restriction confer the 'title' of FI with IRI? - on the assumption that the FI is only teaching for IMC rating and does not himself hold an IR. Or is there a different 'label' From LASORS - it seems that such an instructor can teach for the IR without holding an IR (given 200+ hours of IFR flight time) Am I right in guessing that ads requiring FI(A) IRI are looking for IR qualified instructors not just IMC level instruction??

Can anyone help me with my confusion? Thanks!

cueeffee is offline  
Reply
Old 23rd June 2008, 11:53   #2 (permalink)
smithgd
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fleet, Hampshire
Posts: 78
An FI has the right to teach for PPL issue and Class/Type Rating issue, as mentioned in JAR-FCL 1.330 (a). The job advert is misleading if it mentions "FI with CRI", unless it is refereing to the fact you must be an unrestricted FI holder as opposed to an FI(R).

An instructor (FI, CRI, TRI, IRI, SRI, MCCI, STI) can only teach something he holds, so without an IR they would be limited to IMC only.

Hope that helps
smithgd

smithgd is offline  
Reply
Old 23rd June 2008, 18:26   #3 (permalink)
Whopity
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,044
The privileges of the CRI(SE) are encompassed within the FI qualification. Occasionally the term CRI is used seperately in the context of being a ME CRI however; that is also encompassed in a FI (ME) qualification.

Under JAR-FCL the IRI qualification is exactly the same as the "removal of the no applied IF limitation" which is a hangover from UK National ratings. With the no applied IF restriction removed, you can subject to holding an IR and being standardised at an approved FTO, teach for an IR or subject to holding an IMC rating teach for that. If an approved FTO is looking for "IRIs" their only purpose would be to teach for an IR so it is probable that that is what they are looking for.

The CRI and IRI are actually stand alone qualifications.

Whopity is offline  
Reply
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CAP 413 and AIP Confusion. Name of Pen ATC Issues 22 1st March 2007 02:20
RT Confusion VNAVSPD Private Flying 11 29th June 2006 23:43
CPL (SE) and CPL (MEP) Confusion. ikea Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) 3 6th June 2005 01:48
PPL CPL Confusion!! Farrell Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) 8 27th August 2004 14:34
Confusion Paul Phelan D & G General Aviation & Questions 7 27th August 2003 17:47


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
© 1996-2008 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".