Hi, and thanks for your reply.
That is most likely the philosophy they have as well. The thing is, I have discussed the matter with two other CAA's in neighboring countries, which do not agree on the interpretation at all. If you have a reference to where I can find substantial explanation of this, please post it here.
The only thing I find from PART-FCL, subpart J Section 6 is the following:
"FCL.905.IRI IRI — Privileges and conditions(a) The privileges of an IRI are to instruct for the issue, revalidation and renewal of an EIR or an IR on the appropriate aircraft category.
(b) Specific requirements for the MPL course. To instruct for the basic phase of training on an MPL course, the IRI(A) shall:
(1) hold an IR for multi-engine aeroplanes; and
(2) have completed at least 1 500 hours of flight time in multi-crew operations.
(3) In the case of IRI already qualified to instruct on ATP(A) or CPL(A)/IR integrated courses, the requirement of (b)(2) may be replaced by the completion of the course provided for in paragraph FCL.905.FI(j)(3).".
If the interpretation from the Norwegian CAA is correct, I then would be allowed to teach integrated students, already holding a PPL from before on the IR-programme, but not students which do not. Hence; I do not see the connection with Modular vs. Integrated students, nor do I find any reference to this in any legislation.
It is further specifically stated in Section 6, an IR-I (without FI) can teach MPL-students in the I-programme if he fulfills the requirements in the paragraph I quoted above.
Since MPL-students do not necessarily take out a PPL/CPL etc. before the very end of the MPL-programme, I would not neither be allowed to teach these students on the IR-programme, even when I fulfill I requirement (1) and (2) in the above. However, according to Section 6, that is possible.
I can not find the connection..
Thanks for the discussion!