CRI privileges (again): training under IR
"Teaching IFR" is not however the same as "Teaching under IFR".
Similarly to my (as a CRI!) doing a biennial flight on a taildragger, where both I and the student are tailwheel qualified already. I am teaching on a taildragger, but I am not teaching tailwheel - that, he's done before with somebody else.
G
Similarly to my (as a CRI!) doing a biennial flight on a taildragger, where both I and the student are tailwheel qualified already. I am teaching on a taildragger, but I am not teaching tailwheel - that, he's done before with somebody else.
G
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still doesn't get round the fact that the OP was asking whether they could teach IFR with a CRI......
"Teaching IFR" is not however the same as "Teaching under IFR".
Of course the CRI could take a course and become an IRI then he could teach applied Instrument Flying (while flying under IFR or VFR!).
Why does everybody have to over complicate the thing? It's not really that hard!!
3 Point
PS, did you notice that I finally managed to figure out how to quote!!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody's teaching, somebody's learning; it's an instructional flight.
Eg: A flight where the World Aerobatic Champion teaches some manoeuvres to another pilot would not be an instructional flight unless they also held an Instructor Certificate (which would need to contain the privileges to instruct aerobatics)
It's certainly within the CRI's privileges to give refresher training in any skills the pilot already holds
Firstly, you don't need to be in IMC to be flying under IFR; VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR are two completely different things.
Pre EASA the UK did state that the Instructor had to be qualified, in all aspects, for any instruction that might occur during a flight.
I agree that Part-FCL state instructional privileges in the form of instruction towards Licence/Rating Issue or Renewal but they do state that an "Appropriate" Instructor certificate must be held for any instructional flight and, as a simple soul, I prefer to interpret that as the UK CAA used to in the past.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There a many different of arguments of that sort, where people disagree on what the regulation says.
If you ask the CAA, what they will answer (if they answer) will not be necessarily what the authority of another country will answer.
There does not seem to be an official way to get clarification.
If you ask the CAA, what they will answer (if they answer) will not be necessarily what the authority of another country will answer.
There does not seem to be an official way to get clarification.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody's teaching, somebody's learning; it's an instructional flight.
NO, absolutely not. To be an instructional flight (ie for the person learning to be able to Log PUT) the PIC must be a qualified Instructor
a CRI may only give instruction within their instructional privileges
to instruct, for anything, during an IFR flight implies the requirement to monitor, and intervene as needed, the correct exercise of IR privileges
If I hold an IR or an IR(R) on my licence I can operate under IFR; that's not the same thing as saying that I can teach applied instrument flying!
3 Point
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could actually fly in cloud while teaching basic instrument flying which is within the PPL syllabus and therefore within a CRI privileges.
We are not going to agree and that is perfectly fine but you have chosen an horrendous example.
A CRI is not entitled to teach the PPL syllabus (the clue is in the name) and certainly is not qualified to teach IF.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with LA and Bose on this.
The purpose of the intended flight is to improve the inexperienced pilots IFR/IMC flying skills. Now regardless of whether the intention is to teach or just be a helping hand my fear is that the CRI would be teaching.
I have a few thousand hours of which the majority is IFR in singles/twins/jets, and both a TRI and CRI. I consider myself a competent SPA and MPA instrument pilot, however I would never get into an aircraft with another pilot with the intent to teach/coach instrument procedures unless I gained the IRI. I would either be a safety pilot or passenger.
The purpose of the intended flight is to improve the inexperienced pilots IFR/IMC flying skills. Now regardless of whether the intention is to teach or just be a helping hand my fear is that the CRI would be teaching.
I have a few thousand hours of which the majority is IFR in singles/twins/jets, and both a TRI and CRI. I consider myself a competent SPA and MPA instrument pilot, however I would never get into an aircraft with another pilot with the intent to teach/coach instrument procedures unless I gained the IRI. I would either be a safety pilot or passenger.
There's a lot of cross purposes going on here.
Nobody is disputing, that I can see, that a CRI who is not an IRI should not be teaching IF.
However, most of us agree that a CRI, who is instrument qualified, can teach other things (such as for example a new type, or an EFIS system) under IFR, if that is appropriate to the task.
The case posted by the OP, I thought was just "helpful pax" anyhow - but if it is instruction, then no, if it's about IF, it certainly can't be done by a CRI.
G
Nobody is disputing, that I can see, that a CRI who is not an IRI should not be teaching IF.
However, most of us agree that a CRI, who is instrument qualified, can teach other things (such as for example a new type, or an EFIS system) under IFR, if that is appropriate to the task.
The case posted by the OP, I thought was just "helpful pax" anyhow - but if it is instruction, then no, if it's about IF, it certainly can't be done by a CRI.
G
The OP said
For myself, if I am asked to fly with another pilot who is fully qualified but wants some "advice" or wants to "build his experience" I will always expect to be the aircraft commander and the flight will always be dual. If the pilot is not happy with that there are other instructors available. I'm not in any way trying to build hours, I have enough! Simply put, if I'm asked to fly and in any way to be responsible for supervising any aspect of the flight I will expect to be in command and will subsequently log the flight as P1. If I'm not participating in the flight I'll look out the window, enjoy the view and log nothing. It's really very simple and there's no need to over complicate it!
For myself, if I am asked to fly with another pilot who is fully qualified but wants some "advice" or wants to "build his experience" I will always expect to be the aircraft commander and the flight will always be dual. If the pilot is not happy with that there are other instructors available. I'm not in any way trying to build hours, I have enough! Simply put, if I'm asked to fly and in any way to be responsible for supervising any aspect of the flight I will expect to be in command and will subsequently log the flight as P1. If I'm not participating in the flight I'll look out the window, enjoy the view and log nothing. It's really very simple and there's no need to over complicate it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRI privileges (again): training under IR
BoseX: Climb close to a cloud in a class E airspace to be as high as possible before a stall is a example of a VFR SEP skill taught under IFR
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly people are at crossed purposes, look at the OP's question. It relates to a CRI giving instruction under VFR or under IFR. If the CRI is qualified to fly the aeroplane while operating under IFR then he may also give instruction while flying under IFR; that's the answer to the OP's question!
Now, there are supplementary questions which follow on from that. Can the CRI teach basic Instrument Flying? Can he teach applied Instrument Flying? Can he teach anything while flying in cloud? I of course have been looking for extreme examples to illustrate some of these questions. Just because I am suggesting that something is within the rules does not mean that I think it is sensible or that it would be right in every case.
A CRI who gained the qualification last week and has a few hundred hours in his logbook giving instruction in a solid overcast with turbulence and icing; not good! A CRI with 10,000 hours of which 2,000 are operating single pilot aircraft under IFR who continues the lesson while climbing through a layer of stratus between 2,000 and 4,000 feet? Perfectly reasonable!
The regulations don't substitute for judgement and experience; this is one very good reason why most training is now delivered through an ATO where there is a proper management structure.
I said
Level Attitude said
Note that I did not say that the CRI is entitled to teach a student pilot who has no licence. The CRI is absolutely entitled to teach for the renewal of an SEP class rating (provided he has an SEP rating himself). A pilot with a lapsed SEP rating will require refresher training at an ATO and the format of that training will be determined by the HoT at the ATO but could well include any or all of the requirements for the rating which is basically a PPL syllabus. The CRI is therefore entitled to teach those exercises and I can't see why that wouldn't include Ex 19! Its not what the CRI teaches that matters here but who he teaches it to!
Bose, you said
Did you actually mean that or did you mean "Why on earth would an Instructor consider it appropriate to be teaching non IF skills while flying in cloud?
Two different questions!
There are already examples further up the thread of where a non instrument flying lesson may take place under IFR. How about night flying? Is that taught under IFR or VFR? Are the flights flown in IMC or VMC? Can a CRI teach for the night rating??
The regulations do not provide a precise answer for every possible situation; they provide a set of limitations and within those constraints we are all required to go about our business with the application of sound judgement based on our experience. That's how flying works!
A basic PPL course or even an ATPL course does not give a pilot all the answers for every situation he will ever meet. Rather it provides him with a store of knowledge and experience and teaches him some decision making tools which he is expected to rely on to go safely about his business in the sky. This principle transfers very well to the ground!
Don't look to the rules for a precise answer to every situatoin. Take them as limitations, don't read into them things which are not there and apply your knowledge, experience and intelligence to make good decisions.
Happy landings
3 Point
Now, there are supplementary questions which follow on from that. Can the CRI teach basic Instrument Flying? Can he teach applied Instrument Flying? Can he teach anything while flying in cloud? I of course have been looking for extreme examples to illustrate some of these questions. Just because I am suggesting that something is within the rules does not mean that I think it is sensible or that it would be right in every case.
A CRI who gained the qualification last week and has a few hundred hours in his logbook giving instruction in a solid overcast with turbulence and icing; not good! A CRI with 10,000 hours of which 2,000 are operating single pilot aircraft under IFR who continues the lesson while climbing through a layer of stratus between 2,000 and 4,000 feet? Perfectly reasonable!
The regulations don't substitute for judgement and experience; this is one very good reason why most training is now delivered through an ATO where there is a proper management structure.
I said
teaching basic instrument flying which is within the PPL syllabus and therefore within a CRI privileges.
A CRI is not entitled to teach the PPL syllabus
Bose, you said
Why on earth would an Instructor consider it appropriate to be teaching non IF skills under IFR?
Two different questions!
There are already examples further up the thread of where a non instrument flying lesson may take place under IFR. How about night flying? Is that taught under IFR or VFR? Are the flights flown in IMC or VMC? Can a CRI teach for the night rating??
The regulations do not provide a precise answer for every possible situation; they provide a set of limitations and within those constraints we are all required to go about our business with the application of sound judgement based on our experience. That's how flying works!
A basic PPL course or even an ATPL course does not give a pilot all the answers for every situation he will ever meet. Rather it provides him with a store of knowledge and experience and teaches him some decision making tools which he is expected to rely on to go safely about his business in the sky. This principle transfers very well to the ground!
Don't look to the rules for a precise answer to every situatoin. Take them as limitations, don't read into them things which are not there and apply your knowledge, experience and intelligence to make good decisions.
Happy landings
3 Point
Not sure how you reach that conclusion.
A CRI, like any other instructor, if teaching is flying as PiC. Therefore, to teach they must be qualified to fly that aeroplane in those conditions. I can't see that 3-point said anything to contradict that.
An interesting question might be somebody who, say, has CPL/ME/CRI (SE) and consuders teaching EFIS on an ME. The answer to that is presumably that they can't, as their CRI rating is only able to be exercised on SE - but you could argue it either way.
Incidentally, apparently a CRI can't teach for the NR. When it was a "qualification" it was deemed that a CRI could teach *for* ratings but not qualifications. When the NQ changed back to the NR, the ruling apparently remained. On the other hand a CRI can in effect teach the whole PPL syllabus - that's what you're doing for an NPPL (M)--> NPPL (SSEA) "upgrade, if the student is going to pass ! As 3-point said, it depends who you're teaching it to.
G
A CRI, like any other instructor, if teaching is flying as PiC. Therefore, to teach they must be qualified to fly that aeroplane in those conditions. I can't see that 3-point said anything to contradict that.
An interesting question might be somebody who, say, has CPL/ME/CRI (SE) and consuders teaching EFIS on an ME. The answer to that is presumably that they can't, as their CRI rating is only able to be exercised on SE - but you could argue it either way.
Incidentally, apparently a CRI can't teach for the NR. When it was a "qualification" it was deemed that a CRI could teach *for* ratings but not qualifications. When the NQ changed back to the NR, the ruling apparently remained. On the other hand a CRI can in effect teach the whole PPL syllabus - that's what you're doing for an NPPL (M)--> NPPL (SSEA) "upgrade, if the student is going to pass ! As 3-point said, it depends who you're teaching it to.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 4th Feb 2015 at 08:22.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BoseX: Climb close to a cloud in a class E airspace to be as high as possible before a stall is a example of a VFR SEP skill taught under IFR
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeroplane, Licence, Rating and Airspace confusion.
I think this question is directed specificially at Whopity, Bose X and a few others of our cognoscenti.
I flew with an FAA Private Pilot on a flight in Malaysia to Pangkor Island and back from Kuala Lumpur. The aircraft was N registered. So we were legal to fly as s/he did not require a Malaysian Student Pilot Licence.
I did not log the time as I am not an FAA CFI although I do possess an FAA PP/IR. I am a Malaysian AFI and also a British FI (R). I regarded myself as Safety Pilot only.
So my question is if I am flying in Malaysian airspace on a US registered plane with an FAA PPL in the left hand seat and me (at his request due to airspace/local knowledge) in the right, should I log instructional hours for this flight ?
As a further addendum I might add that Malaysian Air Law is heavily based on UK Law and indeed the CAA are the providers of the various written exam papers. I was booked (and paid) as an Instructor and the PIC was previously unknown to me.
Comments from all quarters also welcome.
Cheers
I flew with an FAA Private Pilot on a flight in Malaysia to Pangkor Island and back from Kuala Lumpur. The aircraft was N registered. So we were legal to fly as s/he did not require a Malaysian Student Pilot Licence.
I did not log the time as I am not an FAA CFI although I do possess an FAA PP/IR. I am a Malaysian AFI and also a British FI (R). I regarded myself as Safety Pilot only.
So my question is if I am flying in Malaysian airspace on a US registered plane with an FAA PPL in the left hand seat and me (at his request due to airspace/local knowledge) in the right, should I log instructional hours for this flight ?
As a further addendum I might add that Malaysian Air Law is heavily based on UK Law and indeed the CAA are the providers of the various written exam papers. I was booked (and paid) as an Instructor and the PIC was previously unknown to me.
Comments from all quarters also welcome.
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghengis,
That was my question, if a CRI can teach whilst flying IFR without an IRI, then a CRI who holds an MEP/IR can presumably teach EFIS on a twin with a CRI/SE.
The conclusion from 3 point I believe was that it does not matter under what conditions you are teaching it only matters what you are teaching?
I agree a CRI cannot teach for the Night rating but teaching under night for a rated pilot is another debate, I seem to remember it happening not so long ago.
That was my question, if a CRI can teach whilst flying IFR without an IRI, then a CRI who holds an MEP/IR can presumably teach EFIS on a twin with a CRI/SE.
The conclusion from 3 point I believe was that it does not matter under what conditions you are teaching it only matters what you are teaching?
I agree a CRI cannot teach for the Night rating but teaching under night for a rated pilot is another debate, I seem to remember it happening not so long ago.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nick14
Of course not! An instructor has to be qualified to act as the aircraft commander and in this example he is not and therefore could not fly the flight. The CRI is qualified to teach all aspects of an SEP rating which is basically the same thing as an initial PPL syllabus; he can therefore teach Exercise 19! Like what GtE said!!
Bose X
I know what you are saying and I suspect that you know very well what I am saying! VFR/IFR and VMC/IMC are two entirely different things as you know. Additionally, IFR and "flying in cloud" are also two different things!
I could file an IFR flight plan on a CAVOK day and then get airborne, establish an appropriate ATC service within an appropriate block of airspace and proceed to teach then entire PPL syllabus. I can not think of any real advantage to doing this but it would fall entirely within the regulations and would not, as far as I can see be at all unsafe. The example of climbing to cloud-base to enter a stalling exercise has already been given; in general, as soon as one is within 1,000 of the cloud one is in IMC and therefore must, by definition be IFR to remain legal. There's a debate to be had about the wisdom of going so close to the cloud while maneuvering close the the edge of the flight envelope but it would not be illegal to do so.
Really? Tell that the the crew and passengers of all the Commercial Airliners which have stalled and crashed in recent memory! Of course the initial stall training for a PPL syllabus is best taught in clear visual flying conditions (either under VFR or IFR as convenient) but what about advanced training? Did you ever stall an aeroplane while flying it "under the hood" and recover on instruments? Did you ever stall at night or actually in cloud (at least in a simulator if not an aeroplane)? Managing the Angle of Attack to remain within the flight envelope is a basic requirement throughout any flight, as you know very well. Not just a "VFR skill"!
As I said, I know what you mean and I'm sure that you also know quite well what I mean. Interesting debate.
To repeat what I said before (with spelling corrections!)
3 Point
So by that understanding a CRI could teach EFIS differences on a MEP without MEP privileges? Could an FI do the same?
Bose X
Quote:
BoseX: Climb close to a cloud in a class E airspace to be as high as possible before a stall is a example of a VFR SEP skill taught under IFR
Its a VFR skill and should be taught under VFR.....
BoseX: Climb close to a cloud in a class E airspace to be as high as possible before a stall is a example of a VFR SEP skill taught under IFR
Its a VFR skill and should be taught under VFR.....
I could file an IFR flight plan on a CAVOK day and then get airborne, establish an appropriate ATC service within an appropriate block of airspace and proceed to teach then entire PPL syllabus. I can not think of any real advantage to doing this but it would fall entirely within the regulations and would not, as far as I can see be at all unsafe. The example of climbing to cloud-base to enter a stalling exercise has already been given; in general, as soon as one is within 1,000 of the cloud one is in IMC and therefore must, by definition be IFR to remain legal. There's a debate to be had about the wisdom of going so close to the cloud while maneuvering close the the edge of the flight envelope but it would not be illegal to do so.
Stalling is a VFR skill ...
As I said, I know what you mean and I'm sure that you also know quite well what I mean. Interesting debate.
To repeat what I said before (with spelling corrections!)
Don't look to the rules for a precise answer to every situation. Take them as limitations, don't read into them things which are not there but apply your knowledge, experience and intelligence to make good decisions.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 point,
In my example both pilots are qualified MEP, one just needs the EFIS differences. The CRI is SEP only but as he is not teaching the ME skills then surely he can conduct the differences training in any aircraft he is able to act as PIC on? The same goes for your example of the flight being IFR, both are qualified however the training conducted is for SEP exercises and can be done without an IRI?
In my example both pilots are qualified MEP, one just needs the EFIS differences. The CRI is SEP only but as he is not teaching the ME skills then surely he can conduct the differences training in any aircraft he is able to act as PIC on? The same goes for your example of the flight being IFR, both are qualified however the training conducted is for SEP exercises and can be done without an IRI?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order to teach on a Class or Type you are required to hold a valid rating for the Class or Type AND Instructional Privileges on the Class or Type.
So no, your single engine Instructor can't teach differences training on a Class or Type for which they don't hold Instructional privileges.
The same as an IRI must hold Instructional privileges on the Type or Class on which they wish to teach. A good friend of mine and a member of this forum encountered exactly this recently and had to go and do a CRI ME in order to teach as an IRI on MEP following a ruling by the CAA.
So no, your single engine Instructor can't teach differences training on a Class or Type for which they don't hold Instructional privileges.
The same as an IRI must hold Instructional privileges on the Type or Class on which they wish to teach. A good friend of mine and a member of this forum encountered exactly this recently and had to go and do a CRI ME in order to teach as an IRI on MEP following a ruling by the CAA.