Requirements for supervising FI

[mrmum]

Do you need to have a current and valid;

1) Licence
2) Class rating
3) FI rating
4) Medical

to be the nominated supervising FI for an FI(R)?

I thought it was yes to 1, 2 & 3, but wasn't really sure about 4.

Had a look round and found this old thread from four years ago, any advance from what was said then, or situation still the same?
http://www.pprune.org/flying-instructors-examiners/307444-fi-rating-current-supervise-fi-r.html
Thanks

[blagger]

Can't see why an FI who is temp without medical couldn't supervise as long as they are nominated on the RTF registration.

[Whopity]

Can't see why an FI who is temp without medical couldn't superviseThen try reading Article 72. Unless granted a written exemption by the CAA they cannot exercise the privileges of the licence or any rating contained in it! Supervision is one of those privileges.Requirement for a medical certificate
72 (1) This article applies to any licence granted under article 64, other than a National
Private Pilot's Licence (Aeroplanes) or a Flight Radiotelephony Operator's Licence.
(2) The holder of a licence to which this article applies is not entitled to perform any of
the functions to which the licence relates unless the licence includes a valid medical
certificate issued under paragraph (4).

[blagger]

Ah OK!

I think a lot of FIs and FEs will prob drop down to Class 2 meducals when EASA comes in anyway, although I'm still unclear as to how the PPL FI remuneration will b promulgated presumably a AIC or ANO amendment

[Whopity]

It is already promulgated in Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011. FCL.205.A PPL(A) — Privileges which come into effect tomorrow and override the UK ANO.

There is however a catch:(a) The privileges of the holder of a PPL(A) are to act without remuneration as PIC or co-pilot on aeroplanes or TMGs engaged in non-commercial operations.
(b) Notwithstanding the paragraph above, the holder of a PPL(A) with instructor or examiner privileges may receive remuneration for:
(1) the provision of flight instruction for the LAPL(A) or PPL(A);
(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.The privilege does not extend to instructing or examining candidates with higher level licences.

[S-Works]

Whoppity, where does it say that?

I understand the PPl FI will not be able to teach for a CPL as they must hold the licence for which they are teaching for. However I have not seen anything that prevents a PPL FI teaching someone who holds a higher licence or an examiner for testing.

According to the bods in FCL the only thing a PPL FI will not be able to do is train or test for a CPL. Everything else is acceptable according to them. So is this an interpretation on your part or is there something specific from the CAA?

[Whopity]

I am merely quoting what it says in the new Regulation(2) the conduct of skill tests and proficiency checks for these licences;
(3) the ratings and certificates attached to these licences.It ties the ratings to "these licences" which it defines in (1) as the PPL and the LAPL.

Under JAR-FCL it has always said, licences or ratings Examiners shall hold a licence
and rating at least equal to the licence or
rating for which they are authorised to
conduct skill tests or proficiency checks
A subtle change of wording, whether intentional or otherwise, conveys a different meaning. When I queried it with someone from the CAA, it was clear they weren't even aware of the wording!

[S-Works]

Ah OK. I wonder if perhaps it might be worth stating in your interpretation as it did rather read like fact.....

I did wonder when I read the wording originally if that was in fact what was intended and called the CAA to establich the position. What they told me was as above and they did confirm in an email. There is a likelyhood I will use some PPl FI and CRI in the future so needed to be clear.

It is yet another example of the poor grasp of English demonstrated by the people writing these rules, but then if you look at much of the team responsible English is not their first language.

[Whopity]

Of course it may say something entirely different if we read it in any of the other languages. I am sure lots of FIs will want to revert back to PPL privileges and a Class II medical.

[Talkdownman]

lots of FIs will want to revert back to PPL privileges and a Class II medical
I see that holders of UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) do not have any option.
In addition to converting UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) + FI Rating to Part-FCL PPL(A) + Part-FCL FI(A) Rating, may one retain UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) for use on non-EASA aircraft?
Will the UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) exist after transition?
If so, would there be there any point in retaining the licence?

[S-Works]

To be fair though, the BCPL was only created to allow the original PPL FI's to continue. So we are just restoring the status quo! Or is it just an ego thing that BCPL's don't want to be seen as 'mere' PPL's again?

At the end of the returning the BCPL to a PPL changes nothing in the privileges and will allow them to continue to work as Instructors. Whats wrong with that?

[Whopity]

Will the UK BCPL(A)(Restricted) exist after transition? No, the CAA have stated (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2330/e-Sept2011_v3.pdf) that a BCPL(Restricted) will be deemed to be a UK PPL. This will be notified in a forthcoming ANO amendment. Holders can retain the BCPL until it becomes a PPL and then as a UK PPL.

As Bose-x says, nothing lost or gained.

The original metamorphosis was free, the return journey has a price tag, unless holders kept their original PPL!

[Talkdownman]

is it just an ego thing that BCPL's don't want to be seen as 'mere' PPL's again?
Probably. BCPL(R) holders have had a blue licence for 24 years!

To be fair though, the BCPL was only created to allow the original PPL FI's to continue.
To be fair, in return, I think that many of those BCPL(R)s, who have several thousands of instructional hours, have served their 'apprenticeship' in lieu of CPL Theoretical Knowledge many times over!

So we are just restoring the status quo!
Could that be the Royal 'we'...?

At the end of the returning the BCPL to a PPL changes nothing in the privileges and will allow them to continue to work as Instructors. Whats wrong with that?
Nothing. But it hasn't answered my reasonable questions.
Edit: crossed with Whopity's useful answer. Thank you.

[S-Works]

To be fair, in return, I think that many of those BCPL(R)s, who have several thousands of instructional hours, have served their 'apprenticeship' in lieu of CPL Theoretical Knowledge many times over!

Absolutely, nothing changes there. But you will have to excuse my ignorance and explain why that changes anything?

Is it some sort of need for recognition or self elevation over those with less time?

[Mickey Kaye]

What about those with BCPL (unrestricted) ?

I don't' think they came out of all this particularly well.

[blagger]

Anybody know a forecast date for CAP804 to spell it all out?

[Whopity]

What about those with BCPL (unrestricted) ?It becomes a UK CPL which is still convertible to a JAA CPL with 700 hours. Holders of these licences have had the best part of 10 years to convert them. Anyone who has not acquired the necessary hours in that time probably doesn't need a commercial licence.

[BEagle]

The privilege does not extend to instructing or examining candidates with higher level licences.

Not entirely true. The CAA have clarified that a PPL/FI could instruct a CPL holder for an MEP Class Rating, conduct a SEP Class Rating training flight for an ATPL holder etc etc.

But a PPL/FI holder may not instruct for the issue of a CPL or ATPL.

An instructor must hold the licence or rating for which instruction is being given. Hence the idea that a PPL/FI could not, for example, conduct any refresher training for a CPL holder with SEP Class Rating is incorrect.

[S-Works]

As Beagle states, this is exactly what the CAA told me when I called and asked for clarification.

[Whopity]

Lets hope their interpretation is more successful than the LAMP scheme

Effectively, any instructor apart from those training CPLs could drop back to a PPL.

[BillieBob]

Unfortunately, the CAA's interpretation is not that of EASA, at least not as stated by a couple of members of FCL.001. Of course, the Agency's intentions may have mellowed with time but, by the same token, you may well find that the CAA's opinion changes shortly after the first visit by an EASA Flight Standards team. We can only wait and see.