CTC Fully Sponsored Instructor Program-IFR Hours
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: here and there
Age: 42
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTC Fully Sponsored Instructor Program-IFR Hours
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: here and there
Age: 42
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mmm not thought to do that ! 
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
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
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 them
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!
FCL.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
(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
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!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A place where something is or could be located; a site.
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
You don't need an IR
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.
(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.
Yet the CAA have objected on the grounds that only FTO have sufficient experience to teach it.
Last edited by Whopity; 22nd Jun 2012 at 23:17.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Last edited by Whopity; 1st Jul 2012 at 12:01.
ORS 5 No:269
Even "Call me Dave" wants a referendum now!
Even "Call me Dave" wants a referendum now!
Last edited by Whopity; 1st Jul 2012 at 21:51.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other issue is that there is absolutely no requirement to log IFR time, so nobody has a record of it anyway.
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
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
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.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Will the IFR/4 = IF be used to convert post PART-FCL implementation
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 anyway
3.2 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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Whopity; 2nd Jul 2012 at 11:46.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by nick14; 5th Jul 2012 at 10:46.
