FI(A) issue requirements

[RYR_Jockey]

Hi guys. Would someone be able to answer a quick question for me. I am trying to find out if there is a minimum requirement of 100 hours PIC to have a FI(A) issued if you have a CPL? I have completed an integrated course but dont have 100 hours PIC. Im looking at doing an FI(A) to try and get some flying experience that way but its been mentioned to me that I need 100 hours PIC. JAR FCL 1.335 says nothing about this. CPL holders need a minimum of 200TT. Can anyone shed some light?

[IRRenewal]

In the UK the following applies:

Have at least a CPL(A) or have completed at least
200 hours of flight time of which 150 hours as Pilotin-
Command if holding a PPL(A).

There are some additional requirements. Search the CAA website for LASORS, look in section H (74 MB download).

I'd assume the Irish regulations are similar if not the same. You might actually have to contact the IAA (they really are quite helpful as long as you don't have to deal with the medical division)

[RYR_Jockey]

Hi IRRenewal thanks for the reply. JAR-FCL 1.335 and LASORS are essentially the same. As are IAA requirements but none of these documents mention anything about 100 hours PIC. The only reference to a PIC requirement is if the applicant holds a PPL. The thing is that I didnt do modular training so when I did my CPL test I wasn't required to have done at least 100 PIC hours. As a result, under the intrgrated course I did I only have 78 hours PIC. Dispensation is given for the issue of a CPL to integated students with regards to PIC time. However does this mean that an integrated student must then build the deficit if they wish to do a FI(A)? I cant find any reference anywhere either in JAR or LASORS :ugh:

[S-Works]

At what point did you think having 78hrs PIC made you qualified to become and FI? Ah no what you wanted was someone else for you to pay for your experience........

[Whopity]

JAR-FCL 1.355Before being permitted to begin an approved
course of training for a FI(A) rating an applicant shall have:
(a) at least a CPL(A) or completed at least
200 hours of flight time of which 150 hours as
pilot-in-command if holding a PPL(A);
Thus if you have a CPL you may commence a FI Course.

The 100 hours you refer to is for the issue of a CPL JAR-FCL 1.155 c)(1)(1) 100 hours as pilot-in-command, or
70 hours as pilot-in-command if completed
during a course of integrated flying training

[bingofuel]

I find it very sad that the reason you state for trying to become an FI(R) is to gain experience. It would have been so refreshing to have read that you actually wanted to teach or try to pass on knowledge to new students. With minimum hours and an integrated course I suspect you have no desire to be an FI but want others to pay for you to log another hour P1.
Harsh comments, yes, but at present there are many FI s seeking work who actually want to teach and enjoy it and I hope they get the jobs first.

[RYR_Jockey]

Thanks Whopity! I got similar figures from LASORS but wasn't sure.Im waiting to see if the IAA is the same as the CAA.


bose-x at no stage did I "think having 78hrs PIC made you qualified to become and FI". Im actually looking for some help so that I might start a course which would one day see me on my way to becomming qualified to be an FI. So clear the sand out of your vagina and keep your synical remarks to youself. :ok:

bingofuel - I want to do a FI(A) because I actually do want to teach. I enjoy flying and thought that it would be good to teach as it would pass on information while consolidating what Ive learned myself. Yes, there is the aspect of actually getting paid to do a job in an industry that Ive chosen to make a career in, and god fobid gain experience and selfishly become a better pilot myself, but I dont think I should be apologising for that. However on the off chance that your the sensitive sort, Im sorry if Ive let you down.:(

[S-Works]

bingofuel - I want to do a FI(A) because I actually do want to teach. I enjoy flying and thought that it would be good to teach as it would pass on information while consolidating what Ive learned myself.

Pass on what exactly? the water behind your ears????

[bingofuel]

Hopefully not his spelling, grammar and punctuation skills.

[RYR_Jockey]

Ha ha you made me chuckel a bit. Do you mind if I ask bose-x, are you an instructor and if so do you encourage your students with that wit of yours? Do they listen or just smile and nod? Or are you too self righteous to notice!?:ok:

[S-Works]

I do indeed amuse my students with my razor sharp wit. But that is an aside from my view of hours building Instructors.

Instruction is about giving of your experience. We owe it to our students to ensure that they gain the finest education and are equipped with skills that will carry them safely through their flying career. A well trained, comfortable and confident student will keep flying. In my opinion only an experienced pilot and capable Instructor is capable of doing this not some wet behind the ears oik seeking to have their flying paid for by someone else so they can jump ship to a 'proper' job at the earliest opportunity.

I love to teach and I believe we have a duty to do it well. Self righteous? Maybe.

[Cows getting bigger]

You do have to question a system that allows a pilot with so few hours to get a particular rating. At 78hrs P1 I was still merrily getting lost within 50nm of my home base, had 4 airfields in my log book and I didn't dare go anywhere near a stall.

Hmmm, maybe our chap is an ideal candidate? ;)

[RYR_Jockey]

bose-x when you say;
Instruction is about giving of your experience. We owe it to our students to ensure that they gain the finest education and are equipped with skills that will carry them safely through their flying career. A well trained, comfortable and confident student will keep flying.

then I have to respect you. And if you actually practice what you preach, exactly how you preach it, then Im sure there are some well trained and confident pilots out there. But that respect is lost when you then refer to someone such as myself as wet behind the ears oik

because that sort of comment is not encouraging at all. In fact, it could even effect ones confidence :(

cows_getting_bigger You do have to question a system that allows a pilot with so few hours to get a particular rating

this is a fair point. However, everybody has to start somewhere. I think that this type of attitude prevails amongst those who already have such a particular rating, and who have subsequently forgotten what its like to be at the bottom of the ladder trying to get a foothold.

[Cows getting bigger]

RYR, I don't think I have an 'attitude', merely an opinion. I don't forget how difficult it is to make a start, but experience (life and aviation) tells me that it is a rare individual who can jump into an aircraft with so few hours and then provide quality instruction. I reiterate, there is something wrong with the system (ie something we all subscribe to) whereby the only way low houred CPLs can get a few more hours is by following the FI route.

[timtucker]

Yeh, about as sharp as a finely honed beachball. And Self-righteous? Without a doubt.
So you turn your nose up at people who are trying to find a way to get their flying paid for? That would include every professional pilot, military or civil, in the world.
Do you get your flying paid for BOSE-X or are you one of the unlucky ones?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Flying hours is a poor indicator of flying abilty. Attitude, personality, and common sense are important atributes for a flying instructor but difficult to detect on the basis of a short written text. Teaching the PPL skill set is not rocket science and well within the capabilties of a realtively low houred CPL. The important thing for the new instructor is to park their ego at home and realise just because they finished the integrated course and have frozen ATPL they still have alot to learn about flying. They also have to be prepared to work very hard because in the early days the instructor prelesson peparation is vital to ensure the PPL student gets their monies worth.

[Duchess_Driver]

Teaching the PPL skill set is not rocket science and well within the capabilties of a realtively low houred CPL. The important thing for the new instructor is to park their ego at home and realise just because they finished the integrated course and have frozen ATPL they still have alot to learn about flying.

Well said, Sir.

It is character and application, amongst other things, that makes a good instructor. There may be something wrong with the system, but the authority (in their infinite wisdom) has set those requirements based on what they perceive as sensible.

Interestingly, do we have 'limits' that we impose over and above the authority minimum, or do we accept all comers that we consider suitable after the Pre Course ride?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Well said, Sir.

It is character and application, amongst other things, that makes a good instructor. There may be something wrong with the system, but the authority (in their infinite wisdom) has set those requirements based on what they perceive as sensible.

Interestingly, do we have 'limits' that we impose over and above the authority minimum, or do we accept all comers that we consider suitable after the Pre Course ride?

I am qualified to teach the Instructor rating in Canada. The first 5 hours of the instructor course I teach is a job interview. If I do not think you will be a good instructor (ability plus attitude plus work ethic) I will fire you....there can be no other way as I take the responsibilty of producing a new instructor very seriously.

[DFC]

Interestingly, do we have 'limits' that we impose over and above the authority minimum, or do we accept all comers that we consider suitable after the Pre Course ride?


Who are the "we" you are referring to?

If an organisation provides training for the Instructor Rating and the requirements for starting the course are x then provided that the candidate meets the minimum requirements you are not permitted to block their attempts to complete the course by adding higher personal requirements.

Letting them know that even if they pass the course they will not get a job with your organisation until they have certain experience is a separate issue.

If they guy meets the requirements to start the course, completes the course and passes the test then they are as entitled as anyone else to hold the rating.

Spending 100 hours flying circles within 10nm of the base airfield on CAVOK days may give someone 100 hours PIC in their logbook but it gives them zero experience.


At 78hrs P1 I was still merrily getting lost within 50nm of my home base, had 4 airfields in my log book and I didn't dare go anywhere near a stall


Is that a measure of your ability, the organisatioon that trained you or the examiner that said you passed the test?????

Who is going to teach to a higher standard - a natural teacher with a PPL or a 20,000 hour Badge collector who has lots of badges but nothing to back them up with and no teaching ability.

A good training organisation will be able to employ an FI(R) and provide appropriate further training and supervision so that they develop their abilities. It is at this stage that the foundations of a good instructor are built upon and when the instructing takes shape.

Unfortunately, far too many organisations think that the end of the FI course is the end of the training rather than simply the start of the most important stage.

[mad_jock]

To note as well if the person has been on an Intergrated course the P1 hours will never truely been P1 hours.

Every single flight will have been signed off by an instructor. The pilot will never have left a controlled enviroment. WX will always have been double checked. The will have had there hand held by a ops deptment making sure that they have self briefed correctly, the instructor will then have checked that they haven't missed anything.

For instructor ratings the PIC requirement should be post license issue be it PPL or CPL.

[Cows getting bigger]

DFC, probably all three. :) I take you back to the early 80s...........

[Duchess_Driver]

Who are the "we" you are referring to?

FIC Instructors was the aim of the question.


If an organisation provides training for the Instructor Rating and the requirements for starting the course are x then provided that the candidate meets the minimum requirements you are not permitted to block their attempts to complete the course by adding higher personal requirements.

We can discuss the merits of the system all day long, but there is an opinion on this forum that newly minted intergrated graduates or people who want to undertake the FI course meeting the minimum requirements of the authority wont be 'experienced' enough to make a good instructor.

I have my own opinion about that.

So, my question was directed at those who feel the minimum is not enough - how do they apply their 'higher' standards?

[mad_jock]

I think the way the gliding instructors grading works and the method of upgrading has a lot going for it.

[Cows getting bigger]

I agree. The other thing that needs addressing (in the UK) is the 25 supervised solos. I've seen all sorts of shenanigans here. At very best, you get FI(R)s who are bunged a few insignificant solos without them actually making a go/no go decision. At very worst I've seen excessive use of the parker pen routine where 'mates' have looked after each other trading in student solos. Regardless, I have rarely seen any mentoring of FI(R)s by supervisory instructors. If the 200hr (78 P1), new out of the box chap is to develop, he/she needs to be managed by someone who cares rather more than rattling off a shed load of Exercise 3s.

Where I work I don't see anyone applying 'higher' standards; I see a sausage machine that works to the bottom line.

[BillieBob]

If an organisation provides training for the Instructor Rating and the requirements for starting the course are x then provided that the candidate meets the minimum requirements you are not permitted to block their attempts to complete the course by adding higher personal requirements.What nonsense! The pre-entry requirements to my FI course are precisely what I decide they are going to be. If I, as an FIC instructor, decide that I will not take on anyone with less than, say, 200 hrs experience post licence issue, nobody can force me to do so. The Authority is not allowed to set higher requirements than JAR-FCL for issue of the rating but the industry can do what it likes.

Mind you, I won't get much business because the bloke down the road will take on anyone with the minimum requirements and knows a friendly FIE with a 100% pass rate. He also has an 'in' with the Club that Cows is talking about so he can get his proteges unrestricted in no time. And it all gets worse in the brave new world of EASA.

[timtucker]

Why do you think it will get worse BillieBob? Do you think the rules will change? More regulation? If everything else that E@rsole has done so far then I suppose that this will be the case.:ugh:

[DFC]

The pre-entry requirements to my FI course are precisely what I decide they are going to be.


No it is not "your course" it is a course (as laid down by the Authority) which you have been authorised to provide.

JAR-FCL 1.335 specifies the requirements to be met before starting the course.

While you are entitled to turn away business, you are not entitled to say that Mr X fails to meet the requirements to start the course when those are not the requirements laid down.

It is entirely possible that Mr X can ask you (as a person so qualified) to complete the pre-entry flight test while having the intention of completing the course at another organisation - perhaps in another country.

Since this is the only element of the entry requirements that you have any involvement with, are you going to unfairly fail Mr X because they don't meet your personal higher standards?

Seems to me that you have missed the whole problem.

The problem is not Mr Y - integrated CPL - who has the skill and knowledge to pass all the requirements in minimum hours - starting an FI course because there is a good probability that Mr Y will pass the course.

The problem is that Mr Y or anyone else who has passed the course is not finished training as an FI and needs further training especially before they are unrestricted.

The day after becoming un-restricted an FI can set up their own RTF and start providing trainig to the general public. Perhaps if more Supervising FI's remembered that then they would not be so free with recomendations to have the restriction removed.

Remember that having the required hours and the required supervised solos does not automatically qualify them for having the restricftion removed.

As for;


but the industry can do what it likes


We there in is the problem. The industry can decide that it will not employ FI's until they have 500 hours PIC and a host of other requirements. That has no effect on the fact that a CPL holder who meets the pre-entry requirements, who passes the course and test can obtain an instructor rating.

Perhaps I could compare you to a driving instructor trying to reduce traffic congestion by refusing to put forward capable drivers to take their test!! :)

[BillieBob]

DFC - You clearly do not understand the relationship between JAR-FCL, the Authority and the industry. Having been directly involved in gaining various FTO and TRTO approvals over the last 15 years or so, I do.JAR-FCL 1.335 specifies the requirements to be met before starting the course.........and in each case the specific experience requirement is prefaced by the words 'at least'.

JAR-FCL lays down the agreed minimum requirements for approval of a course or for the issue of a licence or rating. The Authority, which itself cannot set any higher minimum requirements than those agreed by the JAA, is charged with examining any submission for course approval and ensuring that it meets all of the minimum requirements. If an FTO or TRTO submits a course whose pre-entry requirements meet or exceed the laid down minima and is in all other respects compliant with the requirements, the Authority has no choice but to approve that course. Consequently, if I submit an FI course for approval that includes all of the pre-entry requirements laid down in JAR-FCL and, in addition, requires the applicant to have a minimum of 200 hours experience post licence issue, it will be approved.

For example, a few years ago I was involved in the preparation of a submission for a SP turbojet type rating course on behalf of a well known TRTO whose management did not wish to take on any student who did not hold at least a CPL with at least 500 hours flight experience. These requirements, both well in excess of the JAA minima, were accepted without question by the UK CAA and the course was approved.

Similarly, the design of the course is up to me, provided that it meets the minimum requirements of JAR-FCL. In the case of the FI(A) course, AMC FCL 1.340 offers some guidance on the construct of the course and its content but how that is arranged into a practical curriculum is up to me to decide and to declare in the relevant Training Manual. Provided that the resulting course covers all of the syllabus items and comprises a minimum of 125 hours ground and 30 hours flight training, it will be approved.

That being the case, your insulting, and somewhat childish comments regarding the pre-entry flight test and comparison with a driving instructor are as irrelevant as they are ill-informed.

timtucker - EASA's stated intention is to de-restrict the market to a ridiculous degree. Under current plans, it will be possible for a candidate to select an examiner, for any flight test, from anywhere in Europe. The result will, of course, be that any examiner who sets other than the lowest standards, will find himself out of business as everyone flocks to the 'easiest' touch.

[timtucker]

sounds a little like that joke about the Space Shuttle; 1 million parts and 10,000 contracts awarded to the lowest bidder...