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!
Depends what you mean by 'in a JAA administration'. The restricted privileges may be exercised anywhere so long as the training given is for a JAA PPL(A) or for a single-engine class or type rating and is supervised by an FI(A) holds a JAA licence and FI rating.
I asked the CAA what I would need to do to add a CRI to my FI(R). Their response was:-
LASORS section H3.5 states 'an existing AFI (A) or FI (A) holder who does not wish to revalidate or renew that rating, but would like to gain the CRI (A) rating will be required to complete the following...' As you still wish to hold the FI (A) rating, you will be required to meet the initial CRI requirements as per LASORS H3.2. As you are the holder of an FI (A) you are credited the Teaching and Learning part of the CRI course. This information is detailed in H3.2.
Personally, I believe all FIs should be given a CRI automatically. This would then allow the FI(R) to train qualified pilots without the need for supervision.
Just out of interest, why would you want to add the CRI to an FI rating?
Ideally I would like to do IR/ME, MEP and CPL instruction, hence I am interested in becoming a CRI (on a MEP) and an IRI. I have the required MEP and IFR hours, and have plenty of instructor time (mostly MEP and mostly IFR - though this is not in a JAA environment).
I am hence trying to work out whether I can instruct CPL/MEP/IR under JAR without first doing 100 hours and 25 solo supervisions of JAR PPL instruction. It seems that this is viable if I do a CRI and IRI course.
Just out of interest, why would you want to add the CRI to an FI rating? As far as I understood it, there was nothing an FI couldn't do that a CRI could.
Might be wrong.
In my case, I wanted to be able to teach aerobatics to qualified pilots. I was unable to do this unsupervised as an FI(R) despite having the aerobatics instruction restriction removed. I found it difficult to get a willing supervisor because none of the supervising instructors at the school where I did most of my work knew anything about aerobatics. It was frustrating.
Being a restricted instructor also means you can't fly the SEP "one hour with an instructor" for your fellow group members or mates unless you can pursued someone to supervise you while you do it.
Trim stab - you will need an FI rating for teaching CPL, others you can do on CRI and IRI. reality is that no commercial school would take you without an FI as most of the work will be integrated training or modular CPL onwards.
Then you will not be able to teach CPL other than the PPL elements on an integrated course. Look at the Privileges of an FI versus a FI(R) in either JAR-FCL or Part FCL.
As you are the holder of an FI (A) you are credited the Teaching and Learning part of the CRI course. This information is detailed in H3.2.
You have already exceeded this requirement by a factor of 10. Sadly, the clerks and their supervisors in PLD don't seem to understand that! When JAR-FCL was first published it actually stated that a FI includes the privileges of a CRI but it disappeared from the text, nevertheless a FI is a CRI SE.
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.
Whilst it may seem inelegant, why not just do the CRI course and skill test?
With the teaching and learning component not required, and assuming you're as experienced and current instructor as you sound to be - it should be 4ish hours flying over 3 days, and a skill test on the 4th.
No, not as cheap as I'm sure you'd like, but not horrendous either.
Incidentally, of anybody who has done both FI(R) and CRI, how different are the two skill tests? I've only done the latter and although I'm sure I'll get around to FI at some point, I'd be interested to know what the real differences are at the skill test point in the meantime.
Like chalk and cheese. An FI completes a comprehensive test based initially on teaching one of the primary teaching exercises, followed by a series of shorter secondary exercises and then a series of comprehensive questions covering the entire PPL syllabus. A CRI on the other hand has received only 10% of the training and is only required to demonstrate teaching elements of a class rating conversion with differences training type questions.
Whilst it may seem inelegant, why not just do the CRI course and skill test?
Up to now, the CAA has issued a CRI rating to any FI who has requested it. It is not inelegant, it is an indication of the gross ignorance and stupidity that is beginning to emerge from the Belgrano.
Your description of the FI skill test Whopity sounds much closer to what I took (as a CRI skill test) than your description of the CRI skill test.
My brief was that I had a lapsed pilot, who had already failed their revalidation by test, and given a list of deficiencies to "sort out" - including stalling, PFLs and circuits. I also had to do two briefs (one for circuits, one for PFLS and stalling), two debriefs, and a long brief on a topic I was given the day before (I got W&CG). In between was a fairly wide variety of mostly quite deep questions on licencing, good practice, and so-on that went fairly deeply into my CPL knowledge.
Checking my logbook, it was about 1:50 flying, and from memory about another 4 hours on the ground.
Class conversion really didn't feature in it to be honest. On the other hand, it was certainly relevant to much of what I've done as an instructor since and I have no complaints.
and so-on that went fairly deeply into my CPL knowledge.
But as a CRI you are not required to have CPL knowledge; you had an advantage over the many PPL holders who attempt the rating! You did not of course have to teach a primary exercise: E of C; S & L; or Stalling at the basic level. Yes, the format is basically the same because that is what the requirement is but the depth is quite different. Whilst most FIs will have covered the same base material, the background of CRIs is a real mixed bag, with only 3 hours training it is simply not possible to achieve a consistent standard, some are good, whilst others are very marginal. The transition from CRI to FI has also challenged all those I have encountered.
Class conversion really didn't feature in it to be honest.
I would say that it did:
who had already failed their revalidation by test, and given a list of deficiencies to "sort out" - including stalling, PFLs and circuits
You have been asked to prepare a qualified pilot for their Class Rating Skill Test; thats what the rating is all about.
My FI(A) and CRI(A) SE tests were pretty identical. Full presentation of an exercise from the PPL course including board brief, in air then a full ground debrief. The CRI(A) ME covered an exercise from the MEP but was the same again with regards to content.
All done with Ontrack who are superb. Now either they are over teaching in which case I certainly got value for money or others are under teaching.
Whoppity, your distaste for the CRI rating has always been easy to see. But I think you do it a great disservice. Virtually everything I do as an Instructor and Examiner at work is covered by the CRI rating. I keep the FI(A) current purely so I can do PPL skill tests and act as a supervising FI(A).
There is nothing wrong with the CRI rating; the problem is that the rating was ill conceived in the first place; you can't tell me that 10 times the training produces the same result or test requirement even though the rules refer to the same test schedule. That leaves the FIE as the arbitrator, no advice or guidance was ever produced by the regulator and it is impossible to achieve a common standard. Most CRI candidates do not have anything like the level of experience that was assumed when the CRI was first envisaged; some of course do and it shows. The FIE is left in the position of having to make the most of a buggers muddle. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Gizit CRIs have to take their first revalidation test under EASA!
The CRI course and test that I undertook certainly seems to follow that of Genghis & Bose's experience. Brief on the exercise in hand (whatever that might be - 1hr with instructor, differences etc.), air test (and from someone who did the FI test a few weeks before me, the content and time seemed similar) followed by a board brief on a subject from the PPL syllabus. And then followed by questions on licencing etc.
Even though the CRI classroom training element is shorter than for an FI course you still have to have the knowledge behind explaining how instruments work to weather etc.
And yes, it is down to the FIE but that's the same whether it's an FI or CRI test.
And I did my CRI course after about 325hrs in other words not far off the minimum requirement but my experience was varied and I came from a gliding background. Having the rating, I see PPL's with treble my hours who fly like they're still at the Ex14 stage, plotting their way round the circuit with visual markers instead flying to the conditions.
Last edited by squawking 7700; 23rd Aug 2012 at 10:43.