CRI privileges (again): training under IR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRI privileges (again): training under IR
A IR qualified pilot wants to fly with a more experienced pilot besides him to built up experience, out of an ATO.
The more experienced pilot is a CRI. The CRI is neither FI nor IRI.
(i.) May they fly under VFR the CRI logging PIC, the student P/UT?
(ii.) May they fly under IFR the CRI logging PIC, the student P/UT?
[
I]FCL.905.CRI CRI — Privileges and conditions
(a) The privileges of a CRI are to instruct for:
(1) the issue, revalidation or renewal of a class or type rating (...);
(2) a towing or aerobatic rating (...).[/I]
You would certainly answer yes to (i). But if you get a closer look at the regs, it does not appear that the CRI makes any usage of his privileges during the flight, as the aim of the training is not specifically for any of the above-mentioned purposes.
If you say that it's a training for the SEP revalidation it's fine, you may do it out of an ATO. Even in that case one might say that more than hour is too much, but it's too far-fetched in my opinion.
What prevents you from training under IR for a SEP revalidation?
I don't see anything against that.
So my answer would be yes to (ii). What would be yours?
The more experienced pilot is a CRI. The CRI is neither FI nor IRI.
(i.) May they fly under VFR the CRI logging PIC, the student P/UT?
(ii.) May they fly under IFR the CRI logging PIC, the student P/UT?
[
I]FCL.905.CRI CRI — Privileges and conditions
(a) The privileges of a CRI are to instruct for:
(1) the issue, revalidation or renewal of a class or type rating (...);
(2) a towing or aerobatic rating (...).[/I]
You would certainly answer yes to (i). But if you get a closer look at the regs, it does not appear that the CRI makes any usage of his privileges during the flight, as the aim of the training is not specifically for any of the above-mentioned purposes.
If you say that it's a training for the SEP revalidation it's fine, you may do it out of an ATO. Even in that case one might say that more than hour is too much, but it's too far-fetched in my opinion.
What prevents you from training under IR for a SEP revalidation?
I don't see anything against that.
So my answer would be yes to (ii). What would be yours?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you have the privileges to instruct under IFR you cannot do so!
If he wants to fly under IFR then you can go with them but this must be under a very strict set of circumstances:
If he is to act as PIC then you will not log any time but will be acting as safety pilot. If you are PIC then he must not log any time as you cannot provide instruction under IFR.
It doesn't matter if the flight is conducted in VMC if you artificially restrict the view, it's an IFR simulation and the PIC must be qualified.
If he wants to fly under IFR then you can go with them but this must be under a very strict set of circumstances:
If he is to act as PIC then you will not log any time but will be acting as safety pilot. If you are PIC then he must not log any time as you cannot provide instruction under IFR.
It doesn't matter if the flight is conducted in VMC if you artificially restrict the view, it's an IFR simulation and the PIC must be qualified.
A IR qualified pilot wants to fly with a more experienced pilot besides him to built up experience
A CRI has no privileges in respect of IR instruction therefore; no such instruction can be logged and IFR flight could not be counted as the hour with an instructor if the instructor is not qualified.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On what legal basis does a client log as DUAL a "cross channel check" with an instructor?
It's basically just a check of the client's ability to execute a navigation, and probably some instruction too.
Do you do any exercise that would be require for a SEP revalidation? You don't instruct for the issue of a license either.
So what FI/CRI privilege to you exercise during that sort of flight? I don't see any
The regulation does forbid to instruct if you are not an instructor,
FCL.900 Instructor certificates
(a) General. A person shall only carry out:
(1) flight instruction in aircraft when he/she holds:
(i) a pilot licence issued or accepted in accordance with this Regulation;
ii) an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given, issued in accordance with this Subpart;
but the above mentioned sort of instruction is not part of any instructor privilege.
It's basically just a check of the client's ability to execute a navigation, and probably some instruction too.
Do you do any exercise that would be require for a SEP revalidation? You don't instruct for the issue of a license either.
So what FI/CRI privilege to you exercise during that sort of flight? I don't see any
The regulation does forbid to instruct if you are not an instructor,
FCL.900 Instructor certificates
(a) General. A person shall only carry out:
(1) flight instruction in aircraft when he/she holds:
(i) a pilot licence issued or accepted in accordance with this Regulation;
ii) an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given, issued in accordance with this Subpart;
but the above mentioned sort of instruction is not part of any instructor privilege.
Last edited by 172510; 31st Jan 2015 at 15:42.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172510
Isn't Take Off, departure, climb, cruise, descent, arrival and landing required for the SEP re-validation? Isn't navigation and compliance with ATC procedures relevant? If I fly a "cross channel check" with a qualified but inexperienced pilot for the purpose of teaching him those things and I fly as the aircraft commander then I will certainly log P1 and he will log dual. The flight would certainly count for the instructional hour for SEP re-validation.
All perfectly legal.
3 Point
Isn't Take Off, departure, climb, cruise, descent, arrival and landing required for the SEP re-validation? Isn't navigation and compliance with ATC procedures relevant? If I fly a "cross channel check" with a qualified but inexperienced pilot for the purpose of teaching him those things and I fly as the aircraft commander then I will certainly log P1 and he will log dual. The flight would certainly count for the instructional hour for SEP re-validation.
All perfectly legal.
3 Point
On what legal basis does a client log as DUAL a "cross channel check" with an instructor?
(iii) the holder of an instructor certificate may log as PIC all flight time during which he or she acts as an instructor in an aircraft;
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but am I the only one surprised by this sort of question?
My question to the OP, could you stand in front of the CAA, and hand on heart demonstrate to them you are conducting a dual flight under IFR, or under simulated IMC, within the privileges of your CRI?
My question to the OP, could you stand in front of the CAA, and hand on heart demonstrate to them you are conducting a dual flight under IFR, or under simulated IMC, within the privileges of your CRI?
Let's see if I get this straight?
Pilot A wants an experienced pilot sat next to him whilst he builds up some experience. He is, presumably, fully qualified and current to perform said flight - so not looking for instruction towards a licence or rating. This is presumably a single pilot aeroplane. Basically he just wants somebody sensible to help with a little confidence and feedback during some flight IFR. Pilot A is still managing the aircraft and signing the tech log.
So, considering various qualifications:-
(1) Pilot B is a CRI with nothing else. He's a passenger, as this isn't an instructional flight.
(2) Pilot B is an IRI. He's a passenger, as this isn't an instructional flight.
(3) Pilot B holds an IR. He's a passenger, as he's not required on a single pilot aeroplane.
(4) Pilot B doesn't hold an IR or IR(R). He's still a passenger, as he is unqualified to fly the sortie anyhow.
But there may be reasons to have a "grown up" along as a passenger to provide useful feedback. I've certainly done that with more experienced pilots before - but they didn't log it, and I didn't relinquish being PiC. If they offered advice, I listened to it, but continued to be PiC. For that matter, I've flown with friends on that basis, given them what I hope was a bit of useful advice and feedback, but never pretended to be PiC or delivering a briefed instructional flight - so didn't log it either. (Actually I usually did for interest, but with nothing in the totals columns of my logbook, so making no pretence of being crew.)
Or am I missing something?
G
Pilot A wants an experienced pilot sat next to him whilst he builds up some experience. He is, presumably, fully qualified and current to perform said flight - so not looking for instruction towards a licence or rating. This is presumably a single pilot aeroplane. Basically he just wants somebody sensible to help with a little confidence and feedback during some flight IFR. Pilot A is still managing the aircraft and signing the tech log.
So, considering various qualifications:-
(1) Pilot B is a CRI with nothing else. He's a passenger, as this isn't an instructional flight.
(2) Pilot B is an IRI. He's a passenger, as this isn't an instructional flight.
(3) Pilot B holds an IR. He's a passenger, as he's not required on a single pilot aeroplane.
(4) Pilot B doesn't hold an IR or IR(R). He's still a passenger, as he is unqualified to fly the sortie anyhow.
But there may be reasons to have a "grown up" along as a passenger to provide useful feedback. I've certainly done that with more experienced pilots before - but they didn't log it, and I didn't relinquish being PiC. If they offered advice, I listened to it, but continued to be PiC. For that matter, I've flown with friends on that basis, given them what I hope was a bit of useful advice and feedback, but never pretended to be PiC or delivering a briefed instructional flight - so didn't log it either. (Actually I usually did for interest, but with nothing in the totals columns of my logbook, so making no pretence of being crew.)
Or am I missing something?
G
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What prevents you from training under IR for a SEP revalidation?
But for it to be a training flight the PIC must hold "an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given" If the flight is to be conducted under IFR then the Instructor must hold IFR instructional privileges (which you say you don't)
Err but.
Let's invent the scenario that CRI and pilot both have current SEP/IR or SEP/IMCR. But, "pilot" hasn't got EFIS differences training, whilst CRI is qualified to deliver that. Climb up through some cloud, pop up VMC on top (so legally IFR), deliver training, pick up an approach and pop back down to a landing at the end of the sortie.
Legally, not being in sight of the surface, that flight was IFR. But it wasn't instrument instruction, so I can't see why a CRI with IR or IMCR couldn't have done that.
G
Let's invent the scenario that CRI and pilot both have current SEP/IR or SEP/IMCR. But, "pilot" hasn't got EFIS differences training, whilst CRI is qualified to deliver that. Climb up through some cloud, pop up VMC on top (so legally IFR), deliver training, pick up an approach and pop back down to a landing at the end of the sortie.
Legally, not being in sight of the surface, that flight was IFR. But it wasn't instrument instruction, so I can't see why a CRI with IR or IMCR couldn't have done that.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus, who is training these people? Is nobody being taught the privileges of the ratings they hold?
Original question. Answer is no. Going and build your own hours by actual going flying.
Original question. Answer is no. Going and build your own hours by actual going flying.
The principle there remains. You can be IFR in VMC, that might be the right place to do the training where both pilots are qualified to fly IFR, but the training is not instrument flying training. Or going through IMC into, and back out of, suitable training conditions. Or night, which is probably a bad idea, but not necessarily illegal that I can see; for example I recall a day slipping to the right for a checkout I was due in an aeroplane (I was a vanilla PPL at the time), but I and the instructor both had a valid NQ, so we continued the checkout flight into legal night until complete.
None of which changes that the "instructor" shouldn't be logging the flight discussed by the OP.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 1st Feb 2015 at 11:15.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot of people making things much more complicated than they need to be here.
Firstly, you don't need to be in IMC to be flying under IFR; VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR are two completely different things.
For a flight to be in instructional flight it doesn't have to be at an ATO or even part of a formal syllabus. Somebody's teaching, somebody's learning; it's an instructional flight. It doesn't have to be "for the issue or renewal of a rating" although anything I can think of teaching would meet that criteria because anything I can teach to another pilot will either be new skills or revision of existing skills, all instructional.
With a privately operated aircraft there's no formal "tech log" to sign so no formal indication there of who is the aircraft commander.
To the OP question; if the CRI is really just holding hands and bolstering the other guy's confidence then you'd probably say that he is not part of the crew and so logs nothing with the other guy logging P1. If they agree that his role is a little more formal than that the CRI would be aircraft commander and the other pilot would log dual because that's what happened. In either case the flight must take place within the privileges of the aircraft commander's licence so, for it to happen in IFR the commander must have an IR(R) or an IR.
It's really between the two of them to agree on the format of the flight and nobody, not me or anyone on this forum nor even the CAA can really argue with the choice they make. It's certainly within the CRI's privileges to give refresher training in any skills the pilot already holds whether this is formal training for re-validation or just general skill development and improvement.
3 Point
Firstly, you don't need to be in IMC to be flying under IFR; VMC/IMC and VFR/IFR are two completely different things.
For a flight to be in instructional flight it doesn't have to be at an ATO or even part of a formal syllabus. Somebody's teaching, somebody's learning; it's an instructional flight. It doesn't have to be "for the issue or renewal of a rating" although anything I can think of teaching would meet that criteria because anything I can teach to another pilot will either be new skills or revision of existing skills, all instructional.
With a privately operated aircraft there's no formal "tech log" to sign so no formal indication there of who is the aircraft commander.
To the OP question; if the CRI is really just holding hands and bolstering the other guy's confidence then you'd probably say that he is not part of the crew and so logs nothing with the other guy logging P1. If they agree that his role is a little more formal than that the CRI would be aircraft commander and the other pilot would log dual because that's what happened. In either case the flight must take place within the privileges of the aircraft commander's licence so, for it to happen in IFR the commander must have an IR(R) or an IR.
It's really between the two of them to agree on the format of the flight and nobody, not me or anyone on this forum nor even the CAA can really argue with the choice they make. It's certainly within the CRI's privileges to give refresher training in any skills the pilot already holds whether this is formal training for re-validation or just general skill development and improvement.
3 Point
If they agree that his role is a little more formal than that the CRI would be aircraft commander and the other pilot would log dual because that's what happened.
Yes. It's agreed as instructional, and the CRI is captain, or it's not and they're not.
G
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bose, no, you're not. That could be the case here or it could equally well be the case that the pilot feels he wants to learn and benefit from the wider experience and knowledge of the CRI. Only the CRI and the pilot in question know the answer to that!
The OP said
"qualified pilot wants to fly with a more experienced pilot besides him to built up experience"
That sounds to me as if he wants some training and it would be within the scope of the CRI's privileges to give such training. If the OP decides that all he wants is comfort factor but the CRI insists it's "training" then the OP may want to look for another "more experienced" pilot to sit beside him so that they share a common view of their roles.
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!
3 Point
The OP said
"qualified pilot wants to fly with a more experienced pilot besides him to built up experience"
That sounds to me as if he wants some training and it would be within the scope of the CRI's privileges to give such training. If the OP decides that all he wants is comfort factor but the CRI insists it's "training" then the OP may want to look for another "more experienced" pilot to sit beside him so that they share a common view of their roles.
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!
3 Point
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horses for courses and I respect your right to take that view. I personally prefer to avoid the risk of any situation arising where it's not clear who's in charge.
it's a choice which the OP and his CRI have to make for themselves. I think where we might all agree is that they have to consciously make that choice and fully understand their roles before they strap in.
Happy landings
3 Point
it's a choice which the OP and his CRI have to make for themselves. I think where we might all agree is that they have to consciously make that choice and fully understand their roles before they strap in.
Happy landings
3 Point