Instructors exercising IR/IMCr privileges

[mrmum]

From Trainingcom:
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 exercising 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.
This got me thinking about whether this would also apply to the scenario where an instructor themselves had a valid IR or IMCr, but had a "no applied instrument" restriction on their FI rating. What if there was a layer of cloud between say 1000' and 2000' and they climbed above it to carry out a lesson in VMC "on-top" then carried out an IAP to get back to the airfield. If you follow the principle from trainingcom, then they are still exercising their FI rating during the IAP thus they would need to be entitled to teach the IR or IMCr to do this legally, wouldn't they?

[Whopity]

A FI is entitled to give Instrument instruction on both the PPL and CPL courses without having the "No Applied Instrument" limitation removed from the rating. Remember, this is not a JAA limitation but an outdated UK limitation that wasn't removed due to "software" limitations in 1999. Put simply, you don't need to have completed the IRI course to exercise that privilege. To fly through cloud you do need an IR, an IMC rating or hold a UK professional licence with inclusive privileges.

Whilst there is no clear definition of "Applied IF" it is considered to mean teaching Instrument Approaches not basic IF.

With regard to legality, the FI is perfectly legal doing what you describe. Teaching aerobatics is a slightly different situation, when the licence actually contains a limitation prohibiting such instruction. However; as you may have seen in previous threads you only need a rating to teach for a rating and there isn't one for aeros yet. Trainingcom is really trying to say, if you teach aerobatics make sure you are qualified to do so.

One interesting anomaly is that to teach IF at night, a FI must also hold a night instructional qualification whereas, a stand alone IRI is not restricted to teaching IF by day!

[BillieBob]

One interesting anomaly is that to teach IF at night, a FI must also hold a night instructional qualificationAnd, unless the UK changes the rules, from 8 April 2012 he will need an IR as well.

[mrmum]

BillieBob
Is the "rule changing" you refer to the UK requirement to fly in accordance with IFR at night? So with EASA requiring an IR to fly IFR, by implication you will need an IR to instruct for the NQ. Could a FI then not still teach the NQ in a CTR, SVFR? Admittedly the the 1 hour cross-country might present a problem, you could always do a very slow lap of the perimeter of the CTR;)

[BEagle]

Actually, it's more that the cretinous Kölunatics need to include in their €urorules the same flexible provisions as exist under JAR-FCL 1.175(b):

In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.

It really isn't that hard to include this, is it? If so, then why so??

[Whopity]

In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances SERA Chapter 4 - Visual Flight Rules4.3 When so prescribed by the competent authority, VFR flights at night may be permitted under the following conditions:

[BillieBob]

SERA is not the problem as it retains a degree of flexibility. The inflexible legislation is, as usual, in the ineptly drafted Part-FCL, which states that a pilot may not fly under IFR unless he/she holds an instrument rating. Consequently, from 8 April 2012, the night qualification becomes useless in the UK (except when flying under SVFR) unless the pilot also holds a valid IR. I have as yet discovered no indication that the UK has even considered the implications of this particular piece of €urostupidity.

[BEagle]

BillieBob, when I asked the CAA person responsible, his reply was "Dunno"....:rolleyes:

However, they have now woken up to this.....:hmm:

But the whole problem is, as has been said, entirely due to inept €urocratic bungling.

[Duchess_Driver]

From Trainingcom:
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 exercising 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.

Teaching spinning on an FI course? :confused:

[BillieBob]

Teaching spinning on an FI course?Your point being?However, they have now woken up to thisWaking up and getting out of bed are two entirely different things.

[Duchess_Driver]

My point being that teaching on the FI course includes teaching a FI candidate to enter a spin and to teach the subsequent recovery... Am I not therefore teaching an aerobatic sequence even though my FI ticket still clearly states "No Aerbatic Instruction"

[Whopity]

It used to say "No aerobatics except spinning" but some bright spark has changed it to "No Aerobatics"

[mrmum]

So, does that mean that if the type I instruct on can be used for spinning and I choose to do so with students, but my FI rating has the CAA's "No aerobatics" restriction on it, then that is now (and may have been for a while) illegal?

[mrmum]

Having just had a look at my licence, it appears that the last time it passed through Gatwick for a very expensive reprint, they omitted to put the no aeros restriction it! It definitely used to be there, but I've never done the course nor applied to have the restriction removed, but never mind, I'm all legal it would seem.:ok:

[Whopity]

That could be:
a) another mistake
b) they have finally aligned with JAR-FCL and removed an old UK restriction that doesn't exist in JARs

[Stan Evil]

mrmum

Spinning is not aerobatics and so all FIs can teach spinning if they wish. The same applies to aeroplanes, quite a few are cleared for spinning but not for aerobatics.

[Whopity]

Spinning is not aerobaticsAccording to the ANO Art 255 it is:
'Aerobatic manoeuvres' includes loops, spins, rolls, bunts, stall turns, inverted flying and any other similar manoeuvre;

EASA Definition
For the purposes of this Part, the following definitions apply:

'Aerobatic flight’ means an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

[FlyingStone]

Well, in "normal flight" you usually don't have the need to exceed 30° of bank. According to this EASA's definition, you will require an aerobatic rating to teach steep turns during PPL (sometimes up to 60 deegres of bank) or for teaching recovery from unusual attitudes. I really wonder how's that going to work...

[Shunter]

A FI is entitled to give Instrument instruction on both the PPL and CPL courses without having the "No Applied Instrument" limitation removed from the rating. Remember, this is not a JAA limitation but an outdated UK limitation that wasn't removed due to "software" limitations in 1999. Put simply, you don't need to have completed the IRI course to exercise that privilege. To fly through cloud you do need an IR, an IMC rating or hold a UK professional licence with inclusive privileges.

That's interesting. So would I as a CPL/CRI be legal in doing the same? If I were to fly with a vanilla PPL holder and we did some basic under-the-hood handling work (or flew in IMC enroute) would they be able to log PUT instrument time?

[BillieBob]

If I were to fly with a vanilla PPL holder and we did some basic under-the-hood handling work (or flew in IMC enroute) would they be able to log PUT instrument time? You are legally entitled to give the instruction (as is any pilot) and the PPL holder is entitled to record time spent flying by sole reference to instruments in their logbook, which is nothing more than a personal record. However, the instruction cannot be counted towards the requirements for the issue of an instrument rating as you are not qualified in accordance with JAR-FCL 1.330(d)

[Shunter]

That's fine. It's in the context of "All you fellow group members get a move on and get your IMC ratings while you can. This is what happens if you end up in a tight spot without one".

[BEagle]

Whopity, the EASA definition of 'aerobatic flight' has now been amended after the Kölunatics had the problems of their original definiton pointed out to them!

The latest definition is:

“...an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight or for instruction for licences or ratings other than the aerobatic rating.”

As usual it has been drafted in tortuous €urospeak, with far too many commas. But at least it means that Instructors won't need Aerobatic Ratings to teach stalling, spinning (e.g. for FI candidates), IF UPs, steep turns etc.

As for a pilot being 'legally entitled' to teach IF without holding any qualifications, the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture.

[Whopity]

the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture. A CPL course includes 10 hours IF but the instructor doesn't have to be an IRI!

[BillieBob]

A CPL course includes 10 hours IF but the instructor doesn't have to be an IRI!But to teach the Basic Instrument Flight Module, which attracts the same credit towards the IR, he does. Where's the logic in that?

[Shunter]

the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture.

That of course depends on whether the "proper" instructor is any good or not. I've flown with some awful examples who couldn't teach IF if their life depended on it, despite their being qualified to do so. I'm talking about a basic scan and how to drive the nav kit properly, nothing complicated.

[Whopity]

But to teach the Basic Instrument Flight Module, which attracts the same credit towards the IR, he does. Where's the logic in that? And of course it will cost more, so there will probably be no takers!

[Whopity]

It's in the context of "All you fellow group members get a move on and get your IMC ratings while you can.An IMC rating involves applied instrument flying which you as a CRI are not qualified to give. A FI Course involves teaching IF but not Applied IF. A FI may teach the basic exercises of the IMC course but only a FI without the applied IF limitation, or an IRI can teach the approaches. A CRI can teach nothing towards this rating.

[igarratt]

An IMC rating involves applied instrument flying which you as a CRI are not qualified to give. A FI Course involves teaching IF but not Applied IF. A FI may teach the basic exercises of the IMC course but only a FI without the applied IF limitation, or an IRI can teach the approaches. A CRI can teach nothing towards this rating.

is there any place this is quoted ?
would the caa not have a fit if this was done in practise ?
ie some one sending off their logged IMC hrs with a non IF instructor doing part of the course.

i'm sure i've read it in a doc that you cant teach IF for the purpose of gaining a rating ie IMC without having the IF restriction removed but can teach the Instrument work as part of the PPL.

[Whopity]

would the caa not have a fit if this was done in practise If we go back to about 2001 a very nice lady at the CAA (E C-H) who looked after Examiners used to advise PPL schools that this was the case. A FI can teach Ex 19 and Radio Navigation but to teach Instrument Approaches or Limited Panel you have to have the no applied IF limitation removed. Nothing has materially changed since then. An interesting JAA anomaly is that a CPL Course includes LP but, a FI who can teach on such a course has never been taught to teach LP!

[mrmum]

would the caa not have a fit if this was done in practise ? ie some one sending off their logged IMC hrs with a non IF instructor doing part of the course.
Don't see why they would, as Whopity said, any FI can teach Ex19 basic IF (and Ex18c radio nav) . I've had several customers send off applications to the CAA for an IMCr, with their training following that scenario initially, then I've conducted the applied IF/IAPs. They've all been issued without question, don't know whether anyone at Gatwick actually checks such things though?

[RVR800]

This gets more and more laughable; There are so many rules and so many holes that the legislation is becoming unworkable; what we need is to revert back to what we had previously..

Nobody voted for these changes; no one is asking for them now; no one wants the costs associated with them; there is no safety issues with current legislation;

The central problem is that we have too many regulators who feel the need to create more and more regulations and there is no political check on this only a massive deficit.. :rolleyes:

[Whopity]

And two letters I have seen from Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP reveal that she fully backs the proposals and justifies the additional costs by claiming pilots will have additional privileges with their EASA licence. Another out of touch MP.

[fireflybob]

This gets more and more laughable; There are so many rules and so many holes that the legislation is becoming unworkable; what we need is to revert back to what we had previously..

Nobody voted for these changes; no one is asking for them now; no one wants the costs associated with them; there is no safety issues with current legislation;

The central problem is that we have too many regulators who feel the need to create more and more regulations and there is no political check on this only a massive deficit..

RVR800, agree totally! The lunatics are certainly running the asylums now - I defy anybody to really understand all this complex bureaucratic nonsense - roll on the revolution!

[Whopity]

EASA is only an assistant rule maker. They have shuffled rules from a variety of sources, largely unchecked, those who have acted on the NPAs are largely unqualified to do so, and there is no safety input or understanding within the system. The political clowns above them have a naive belief that common regulation will lead to a common level of safety; it will, based on the lowest common denominator, then what? Who will take note of AAIB recommendations in the future, the CAA will be powerless?

[blagger]

Further to discussion above about FIs doing the IMC course, I just found the following in LASORS E3.1:

"Instruction on the course may only be given by an IRI or a FI who is qualified to teach applied instrument flying"

Anyone know if this has slipped in or is based on something concrete? I was thinking like some of the above posters that a FI without the restriction removed could have done the initial full/partial panel teach.