Aerobatic Restriction

[Waldo Pepper]

Anyone know of a good FIC who can lift the restriction? I'm a reasonably experienced aerobatic pilot based in the South of England, and I would prefer to do the 5hrs in a taildragger of some description hopefully with an instructor with display/compatition experience... I know Freestyle Aviation are probably the best in the business, but I'm looking for something further South than that if poss...Thanks

[BEagle]

There may well be more demand for the removal of the non-aerobatic restriction, following the CAA's latest clarification concerning aerobatics 'demonstrated' during 'trial flights' in Trainingcom 1/2005....:

AEROBATICS ON TRAINING FLIGHTS

We would like to remind you that the inclusion of any aerobatic manoeuvres during training flights constitutes aerobatic instruction, whether these manoeuvres are part of the training syllabus and the intended lesson or not. An Instructor is excercising the privileges of his/her FI rating throughout a dual flight (including a trial lesson) and to carry out or demonstrate any aerobatic manoeuvre, therefore, requires that the Instructor's FI rating is not restricted for the purposes of giving aerobatic instruction.

So - any of these 'aerobatic experience' trial flying lessons obviously require that the pilot must hold a FI rating which includes the privilege of instruction in aerobatics. Hitherto there seems to have been a misperception that 'demonstrating' aerobatics to a trial lesson 'student' was somehow considered to be something other than aerobatic instruction.

[hugh flung_dung]

Waldo: is Old Sarum (near Salisbury) in the right area? if so speak to David Scouller on 01722-322525. His display and competition days were quite a while ago but he's hugely experienced (CFS, ran ETPS, ....)

BEagle: I was surprised by that para in Training.com. It's always seemed pretty obvious that an aero FI rating would be needed for aeros on any instructional flight - have there really been lots of people "teaching" aeros without the tick on their rating?

HFD

[Human Factor]

- have there really been lots of people "teaching" aeros without the tick on their rating?

I think "showing" rather than "teaching". I think the CAA is just trying to emphasise that there isn't a difference in legal eyes.

[BEagle]

I gather that some people with ordinary FI ratings have allegedly indeed been 'demonstrating' aerobatics whilst giving 'trial lessons' to their 'students'......

[GusHoneybun]

This whole aerobatic thing really does need a bit more thought IMHO.

Nothing stopping a freshly minted PPL going out and playing silly buggers with a C150 acrobat.
Nothing stopping an instructor, who is not aerobatic qualified, going on a check flight, and the checkee decided he fancies doing a few loops and rolls. Instructor can log the flight
Nothing stopping the instructor, who has never been upside down in his life, performing aerobatic flights with a student onboard. Legal, as long as he doesn't log it as an instruction flight.
The AOPA syllabus is 10 hours, yet the restriction removal is 5 hours, with no stated experience requirement.

Playing devils advocate here, but perhaps there should be a qualification issued for aerobatics. Based on the AOPA course and you can't be an aerobatic instructor without the qualification before hand.
It unfortunatly goes against my belief of making flying more accessable. ho hum.

[BEagle]

"Nothing stopping an instructor, who is not aerobatic qualified, going on a check flight, and the checkee decided he fancies doing a few loops and rolls. Instructor can log the flight"

Nope - that would constitute aerobatic instruction and would be contrary to the FI's rating privileges.

[Waldo Pepper]

Thanks for all the info. I've been flying aeros for a good few years and doing flights for punters in aero and vintage aircraft...now I find i'm not supposed to do a loop and a roll without 5 hours in an aerobat...thats why I want an FIC who can make the training worthwhile...unf most of the good aeros instructors aren't FIC's...shame..

[DB6]

Waldo, you may find that the course isn't actually necessary. I got my restriction lifted on the basis of previous experience (albeit as a JEFTS instructor) and a flight test. I think there is scope for discretion - perhaps a call to the CAA might clarify?

[Send Clowns]

Waldo

My boss can do it in Bournemouth. We have a Siai Marchetti F260 (http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-IGIE&imgname=G-IGIE001&imgtype=jpg) here, but he might be able to get something else, or you could find an aircraft seperately. Alternatively I think one of the CAA examiners here is a former competition pilot, even a former champion, and one is an old UAS instructor of mine and an ex-F4 pilot, so I am sure could teach you something new.

Send me a PM if you want contact details on any of them.

[DFC]

Of course this like the IMC teaching restriction is a local UK restriction. Pilots instructing in the UK on the basis of non-UK JAA licenses will not have the same restriction.

The CAA's comment in the training com will not affect all the instructors teaching in the UK.

Regards,

DFC

[Pirate]

I was intrigued to read the CAA Trainingcom on this topic. A number of years ago I was an instructor at Oxford and we ran a course for screening would-be pilots for a Middle East air force. The course included basic aerobatics but the company policy was that the instructors did not need the aero instructor endorsement as the tuition was not towards an aerobatic rating. I presume that this was agreed by CAA at the time and, indeed, it reflected my interpretation of the relevant section of the Air Navigation Order.

I can only assume that this new interpretation comes from the European/JARS dimension.

[BEagle]

Perhaps your company's misinterpretation of the regulations was more likely to have been the case....

[BillieBob]

This is a typically pointless piece of bureacracy, which has no standing in JAR-FCL. It is only necessary to hold a FI rating if the instruction being given is for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in that licence (ANO Article 36). Since there is no aerobatic rating or qualification that can be included in a UK or JAA licence, it is not necessary to hold a FI rating to give aerobatic instruction.

In the case quoted by Pirate, one must assume that the training given to the prospective military pilots was not for the purpose of becoming qualified for a licence (he says that it was for the purpose of 'screening') and, therefore, the instructors concerned would not have needed to exercise the privileges of their FI ratings and any aerobatic restrictions therein would be irrelevant.

A trial lesson, on the other hand, is a part of the PPL course and, therefore, the instructrion is given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence. The trial lesson must, therefore, be conducted by the holder of a FI rating who must act only within the privileges of that rating.

[Dole-Queue]

Feel free to shoot me now in flames if you so wish but here is my understanding of the law.

Under the old UK licencing requirements the FI rating came back with restrictions (so to speak) on night flying, applied instrument and aerobatics. A course had to be completed to lift said restrictions - applied instrument requiring the 200hr IFR (50hr IF) and an unrestricted FI.

Under JAR FCL and CAP 393 - as the fancy green book isn't the ANO - the CAA no longer issue UK FI ratings - they are all JAR instructor ratings.

The JAA in their wisdom do not place a "no aerobatics" restriction on FI ratings - and as such one can teach aeros with no training in them at all.

I personally do not agree with the JAA standpoint or that the CAA have succombed to their preaching on such things but legally one can bugger about teaching Bloggs aerobatics whether we as instructors can tell our arse from our elbows or not on the subject.

The 01/2005 Trainingcom happend to bring our attention to the subject so we dug around through the books to study it in more depth - Lasors, JAR-FCL and CAP 393 all got a good looking at in the process.

I might add though that David Scouller is a good guy who knows his stuff and even if no longer a legal requirement getting the gen off one of the good guys is no bad thing - they'll try and kill you S&L let alone upside down and close to the stall.

[checkpointcharlie]

Hi Waldo.

Did you actually get an answer ??? Try Goodwood and the new Super Decathlon. John Grattons your man.

CPC

[NorthSouth]

D-Q:The JAA in their wisdom do not place a "no aerobatics" restriction on FI ratingsWell I'm afraid I'm the smart-arse who has precisely those words imprinted on his FI(A) rating. Explain please!

NS

[BillieBob]

Errr, because it's a UK CAA invention unsupported by either JAR-FCL or, apparently, the ANO.