Flying Instructors & ExaminersA 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!
If the examiners have been provided with inadequate information to support conducting a CRI skilltest, then that's clearly wrong, and also would explain why several of us have experiences of the CRI skilltest that resemble an FI skilltest. On the other hand, we're standalone instructors with a fair range of privileges, and as such should be rigorously assessed.
Personally, as a CPL with reasonable hours, and one who tries to stay as competent as possible, I found it challenging - appropriately so. I honestly don't think I could have passed the skilltest as conducted, when I was a 300 hour PPL.
What do you mean Whopity by "when the Gizit CRIs have to take their first revalidation test under EASA" ? CRI, unlike FI, doesn't require a revalidation test only sufficient teaching experience. That's arguably wrong given our range of privileges, but is the case unless EASA is changing it and I missed the fact.
We are losing the right to do type ratings on "single pilot high performance complex aeroplanes", which goes over to TRIs, which personally makes no difference one way or the other, nor to very many others I suspect - but that's the only EASA change I was aware of.
Also what's a "Gizit CRI"? - is there anybody holding CRI who hasn't passed the skill test?
All CRI's in future will have to revalidate by test, without looking it up I think its the same process as the FI(A).
It was possible in the past for the holder of an FI(A) restricted or not to apply for a CRI(A) without doing any form of test. Reasonable in my opinion as they had already demonstrated to test standard for the issue of in FI(A).
I should imagine that as with any system there are a few CRI(A) kicking around that may be under par and were tested lightly, but then there are a few FI's and TRI that fit that bill as well.
For what it is the CRI is a good rating, it allows the generally experienced to put something into the system.
FCL.940.CRI CRI – Revalidation and renewal
(a) For revalidation of a CRI certificate the applicant shall, within the 12 months preceding the expiry date of the CRI certificate:
(1) conduct at least 10 hours of flight instruction in the role of a CRI. If the applicant has CRI privileges on both single-engine and multi-engine aeroplanes, the 10 hours of flight instruction shall be equally divided between single-engine and multi-engine aeroplanes; or
(2) receive refresher training as a CRI at an ATO; or
(3) pass the assessment of competence in accordance with FCL.935 for multiengine or single-engine aeroplanes, as relevant.
(b) For at least each alternate revalidation of a CRI certificate, the holder shall have to comply with the requirement of (a)(3).
(c) Renewal. If the CRI certificate has lapsed, the applicant shall, within a period of 12 months before renewal:
(1) receive refresher training as a CRI at an ATO;
(2) pass the assessment of competence established in FCL.935.
Looks like you're right.
CAA didn't mention this in their recently published guide to new European pilot licencing regulations, which is arguably a significant oversight on their part.
However, it'll maintain standards and credibility of the qualification, which can only be a good thing, even if it does mean a bit more work and money from us.
The CRI rating was slow to get started, simply because it was put there as the new JAA equivalent to the National TRI(SPA). At exactly the same time the JAA removed the requirement for SP "Type ratings" formerly needed on every different type of aircraft (Yes, every FI conducting professional training had to have a separate Type Rating for each aircraft type they taught on)
At the same time, CAA management, without any reference to its technical licensing staffs, produced a back door agreement giving a number of pilots "instructional privileges" these included BGA Tug pilots and LAA coaches. Ironically, some of these were even given approval to be paid whilst a PPL FI could not! At some point to cement over this "old boy" activity, all such "GIZIT" "instructors" were given a CRI rating free gratis, having never received any training or testing. Many of them were even too lazy to follow the revalidation procedure (a free sign off by a FIE) and went en-mass to the CAA expecting them to do it for them. Some had expired, but they were charged £75 a head and given another "GIZIT" CRI without meeting the renewal requirements.
I recall one Microlight FIC instructor saying to me, "I have just run a Microlight FI course for an aeroplane CRI, how the hell did he qualify?" Clearly he didn't and the day of reckoning is nigh.
Not only is there no defined standard for the CRI test, there has never even been a syllabus of training for a CRI(SE). The JAA never produced one so there was nothing for EASA to copy and the EASA AMC 900 page Compendium of Crap contains nothing. The initial CRI Courses included 60 hours groundschool, until a JAA amendment gave rise to some doubt over the actual requirement which was and still is not clear. The resulting AIC still exists.
I have an FI(R) and the requisite hours for a CRI. After exchanging emails with the CAA Policy Department I was told:
Quote:
Assuming all the required things are in place, all you need to do is submit an Instructor Form 1 (Form FCL 675 Issue 5) completed at sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 14 together with the requisite rating issue fee, logbook evidence of the required flying experience and evidence of a current single engine aeroplane rating and FI(A) by no later than 16 September 2012. The CRI(SPA) on issue will have the same validity as the F(A).
I filled in the form, visited the counter service at Gatwick, had my wallet lightened and got CRI added to my licence.
I have an FI(R) and the requisite hours for a CRI. After exchanging emails with the CAA Policy Department I was told: Quote: Assuming all the required things are in place, all you need to do is submit an Instructor Form 1 (Form FCL 675 Issue 5) completed at sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 14 together with the requisite rating issue fee, logbook evidence of the required flying experience and evidence of a current single engine aeroplane rating and FI(A) by no later than 16 September 2012. The CRI(SPA) on issue will have the same validity as the F(A). I filled in the form, visited the counter service at Gatwick, had my wallet lightened and got CRI added to my licence.
P.S. They get a lot of knocks - but I found everyone at the CAA very helpful while I was working out how to do this
So how come I was told I had to do all the CRI groundschool (apart from the teaching and learning element), flight training and test when I wanted to do this? There seems to be a frustrating lack of consistency at the CAA - you were lucky to get the right person and I must have just got the wrong clerk on the wrong day! Doh!
Quote:
Quote: In my case, I wanted to be able to teach aerobatics to qualified pilots. It's all too late now as the rules change in just under four weeks time but, under JAA requirements, you never needed an instructor rating of any kind to teach aerobatics to qualified pilots. What is more, the JAA FI rating never included that privilege in any case.
It is true that anyone could "coach" aerobatics, but I don't think they could charge for it and I don't think both of them could log the time. It is also true that the FI rating doesn't include privileges to teach aerobatics, but having to do the additional training and testing required to remove the no aerobatics restriction does imply that it is legitimate for a so qualified FI to do it.
Your post referring to the Gizit CRI ratings is a little brash. Pre-JAR one could conduct type conversions and differences training without an instructor rating. It was right that these individuals be allowed to continue this activity - similarly a number of instructors who held PPLs were given BCPLs since the new JAR-FCL regime required this to allow them to continue to be paid.
The CAA provided CRI ratings to a few who were conducting training on behalf of the LAA and BGA, to allow them to continue this activity under JAR-FCL. This was a long time ago (1998), so the reality is that the LAA system now only has 3 people who obtained their instructor rating in this manner. Everyone else either held an FI at the time, or has subsequently passed a FI or CRI skills test.
There has been a significant period of regulation change in the industry which has done nothing to enhance safety. We will see a similar situation occur in the near future with the EASA aerobatic rating. Presently no rating is required to conduct aerobatics, although under EASA there will be (on EASA aircraft). Both myself and BEagle have been involved in the conversion report for this, to allow what you might call 'grandfather rights' to be carried forward.
Quote:
Not only is there no defined standard for the CRI test, there has never even been a syllabus of training for a CRI(SE).
The syllabus of training is contained within the FTOs Training Manual, as approved by the CAA. Whilst there is no AMC for FTOs to 'copy and paste' into their manuals, there must be a syllabus of training in order to obtain approval to conduct the course.
Standards Document 10 (A) contains detail of the Content and Conduct of the CRI skills test, along with the Assessment Criteria at Appendix 1 of the same document.
Pre-JAR one could conduct type conversions and differences training without an instructor rating.
Not if it involved licensing action.
Quote:
similarly a number of instructors who held PPLs were given BCPLs since the new JAR-FCL regime required this to allow them to continue to be paid.
This action preceded JAR-FCL by nearly 10 years (1989) and was to cater for a change in UK Law, nothing to do with the JAA.
Quote:
to allow them to continue this activity under JAR-FCL.
But this activity related to licencing action which had never been part of any previously held privilege, so was not truly a grandfather right.
FTOs submit a syllabus of training based upon a defined requirement; there is no accurately defined requirement in JAR-FCL or Part FCL. Both detail exactly the same Skill Test and content for a CRI test as a FI Test
Quote:
CRI
On completion of the course, the applicant shall take the skill test in accordance with Appendix 1 and Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Appendix 2 to JAR FCL 1.330 & 1.345. FI(A) On completion of the course, the applicant shall take the skill test in accordance with Appendices 1 and 2 to JAR-FCL 1.330 & 1.345.(Section 5 being ME)
This is unrealistic for two courses that differ in length and content by a considerable margin. Standards Doc 10 is issued for Guidance and may well cover a deficiency in JAR-FCL but; the CAA has no remit to add to the EASA regulation to cover perceived deficiencies. i.e. it cannot be more stringent than the basic regulation.
The requirement below does not mean that the FI and CRI skill test are identical - only that the format and duration are approximately the same.
I would expect a CRI to be examined on exercises relevant to teaching someone who already has a licence and adds a different rating - so 10B / 12 / 13 / 16, for example, would be the most relevant.
An FI could be examined on Ex. 4.1 (effects of controls), which makes NO sense for a CRI.
The need to cover more exercises in more depth for FI also explains the difference in course duration.
could anyone help me with regard how many hours experience are required to teach CPL? I hold a frozen ATPL (A) with unrestricted FI rating currently teaching PPL students however I am looking to teach CPL students also but I m not clear of the hour requirements of EASA. Thanks
FCL.905.FI FI — Privileges and conditions The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(d) a CPL in the appropriate aircraft category, provided that the FI has completed at least 500 hours of flight time as a pilot on that aircraft category, including at least 200 hours of flight instruction;
You will of course need to do this at an ATO where they will have a requirement for in house standardisation.
