CRI vs FI Privelages?

[foxmoth]

I was being asked the other day about my qualifications, having stated that I am a Full FI, I was then asked if I was a CRI as well, and the implication seemed to be that this gives Priveleges in addition to the FI, with the CRI having come in (many moons) after me qualifying as an FI I had never really looked at it as it always seemed a "lower" rating (not putting CRIs down, just can't think of a better way to put it), are there things that being a CRI gives you that. Full FI cannot do?

[Genghis the Engineer]

So far as I know, no, there's nothing I can do as a CRI that you as a full FI can't do.

I can however, unlike an FI(R), work without direct supervision of an FI, and do biennial instructor flights. On the other hand the FI(R) gives the ability to teach ab-initio, which I can't do and an FI(R) has a much easier route to FI than I do, which for me basically means going back to scratch again regardless of my instructing hours.

G

[Duchess_Driver]

Other than work unsupervised until the FI restriction is lifted, I am aware of nothing that a CRI can do that a fully fledged FI can't.

Willing to be proved wrong though!

HTH

DD

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just a thought - as a CRI I can do CRE reasonably easily (in theory anyhow, in practice not so easy I gather): is that route open to an FI?

G

[Whopity]

As an FI you have the privilege to train for a licence or rating. A CRI only has the privilege to train licence holders for an aircraft rating. Under the new EASA rules they will be able to train for additional ratings that they hold but so will the FI.

When JAR-FCL was first printed it stated that the FI was also a CRI(SE) but that disappeared at around AL1 or 2 nevertheless, the CRI has less privileges than the FI.

Perhaps the major difference is that an FI (R) must be supervised for all activities whereas a CRI, who cannot conduct ab-initio instruction, does not have to be supervised.

[foxmoth]

Seems much as I thought, not (R) myself so can't really understand why it was asked.

[dobbin1]

It is annoying that as an FI(R) you are not allowed to train qualified pilots unsupervised, whereas a CRI with 1/10th the training can.

It would be sensible to issue the FI(R) with a CRI so that they can do this.

[mad_jock]

They don't have any restrictions currently.

ie they can teach applied instrument, aero's and at night with no additional sign offs.

No supervision required.

Always wondered about a CRI signing folk out solo though. Can they do it?

[goldeneaglepilot]

Always wondered about a CRI signing folk out solo though. Can they do it?

No - in fact a CRI can not even instruct a student until they have obtained a licence. A CRI can not fly a "Trial Lesson" as that is also ab-initio.

The CRI is limited to instructing licenced pilot's only.

[mad_jock]

I know that GEP

But they can also do revalidation training for a class rating if it is out.

An item of which may be deemed to be solo work. Well I let them go up and practise circuits or a nav ex if they wanted to as a FI.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Interesting point MJ. my interpretation of LASORs is that the CRI can only instruct the person if they hold a VALID licence, ie not expired.


JAR–FCL 1.375 Class rating instructor
rating (single-pilot
aeroplane) (CRI(SPA)) –
Privileges
(See JAR-FCL 1.310(a))
The privileges of the holder of a CRI(SPA)
rating are to instruct licence holders for the issue
of a type or class rating for single-pilot
aeroplanes.

[mad_jock]

We are not talking about an expired license we are talking about an expired class rating.

I would also say that an expired license still means you would be a license holder for example a pilot holding a life CAA PPL would still be deemed to hold a license after 40 years not flying.

Also if the pilot held a license with another class rating such a one of the put-put glider ratings then they would also be able to do the training for SEP class rating to be issued.

The CRI is a very powerful rating with minimal training/experence requirements and also with minimal experence requirments for keeping it valid. Personally I am suprised there are not more of them out there in groups and clubs. They usally have a far broader experence base in aircraft types and have real experence compared to the usual zero to heros.

Since they are have been around there has been no indication that accidents have increased, I haven't seen one yet thats been involved in an accident. It would be interesting to know the hours flown as CRI V hours as a FI to see if the statitics back up my feeling that they are at the same risk as FI's who are meant to better trained because they have CPL knowledge.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I don't know how you guys in europe get anything done. our rules seem so much easier to follow. and isn't flying hard enough without the nutty rules.

I had never even heard of a CRI ever before this thread.

USA GUY

[mad_jock]

I think its basis was for a commercial operator of single engined aircraft could maintain its teaching requiments without having full blown FI's on its books.

It would be rather difficult for them to keep a FI valid and also there wasn't much need for them to teach fresh meat.

So they banged out a rating which allowed everything a commercial operator would require to keep things ticking along. A bit like on bigger things a TRI can do OPC's and a line trainer can do line checks etc. So a CRI could teach at night and under instrument conditions.

Nobody had cross checked it with the FI rating. It turned out that actually apart from teaching PPL's the CRI was actually all that most pilots would need access to. It costs next to nothing to get with minimal days training and is very easy to keep valid.

To be honest I think it was sprung on the UK CAA if they had known about it and what it was valid to teach I really don't think it would be as it is today.

[S-Works]

Just a thought - as a CRI I can do CRE reasonably easily (in theory anyhow, in practice not so easy I gather): is that route open to an FI?

Yes it is. I hold a CRE and FE and have both FI(A) and CRI(A) SE/ME as ratings. I know of a number of FI(A) with CRE.

The CRE is way more difficult to achieve than the FE because it is meant to be a sponsored industry rating and is assessed by CAA Staff Examiners unlike the FE that can be done by Industry. It is also way more expensive to gain and maintain.

Since they are have been around there has been no indication that accidents have increased, I haven't seen one yet thats been involved in an accident. It would be interesting to know the hours flown as CRI V hours as a FI to see if the statitics back up my feeling that they are at the same risk as FI's who are meant to better trained because they have CPL knowledge.

You invariable find the CRI is done by way more experienced pilots for a specific reason, whereas the FI(A) is done as a stepping stone by very inexperienced pilots. The extra training of the FI largely offsets the lack of experience in my opinion. So I think its a bit if ing/yang!

[Genghis the Engineer]

We are not talking about an expired license we are talking about an expired class rating.

I would also say that an expired license still means you would be a license holder for example a pilot holding a life CAA PPL would still be deemed to hold a license after 40 years not flying.

Also if the pilot held a license with another class rating such a one of the put-put glider ratings then they would also be able to do the training for SEP class rating to be issued.

The CRI is a very powerful rating with minimal training/experence requirements and also with minimal experence requirments for keeping it valid. Personally I am suprised there are not more of them out there in groups and clubs. They usally have a far broader experence base in aircraft types and have real experence compared to the usual zero to heros.

Since they are have been around there has been no indication that accidents have increased, I haven't seen one yet thats been involved in an accident. It would be interesting to know the hours flown as CRI V hours as a FI to see if the statitics back up my feeling that they are at the same risk as FI's who are meant to better trained because they have CPL knowledge.

I don't think that there are all that many of us as yet, and I don't see the numbers increasing much. The well regarded FIC school where I did mine had had one previously who had failed - and I only know one other CRI personally.

However, I and the other CRI I know have lifetime experiences of aviation, and a couple of degrees in aeronautics each, plus 4-figure hours, so probably rather more than many new CPLs have.

Also the standards of the CRI test that I had to pass seemed similar to, or higher than, what I needed to pass my CPL. So I really do not see this as a shortcut to allow inexperienced PPLs to become instructors: I just don't believe that this is happening, or is at-all likely to happen.


One thing has come up for me however, which is the "solo issue". I recently trained a microlight + glider pilot for his NPPL(SSEA). There could, arguably, have been benefits in sending my student solo for some solo circuits or a local flight. I discussed this with the CFI of the school I was teaching in, and we agreed that if this seemed a good idea we'd do it on his licence with his authorisation, although we never did (and he did get a good first time pass).

But similarly, before signing off somebody's tailwheel differences it would be nice to send them off for a few solo circuits before finishing off. Freelancing however, it's simply not possibly on my licence - so I just have to sign them off when ready and fly with them until then. Not perfect, but workable.

G

[S-Works]

But similarly, before signing off somebody's tailwheel differences it would be nice to send them off for a few solo circuits before finishing off.

You would not do that as an FI either......

Differences training do not have any solo elements in them. So for a tailwheel difference you would train them, sign them up and send them off.

[Mickey Kaye]

The registered facility that I work at recently took on a CRI and he is excellent.

We were actually looking for an FI but the calibre of applicants was poor. None of their CV demonstrated any interest in GA. All had a bare minimum of hours and virtually all of them had never done any unsupervised/none training flights. And as unbelievable as it may sound one had never even flown in the UK. Frankly from our point of view they are unemployable.

The CRI however was a totally different kettle of fish. Holding FAA CPL, CFI, CFII as well as a locally acquired JAR PPL. It was obvious from his CV he had a strong GA interest and has proved himself to be quite an asset by bringing in a fair amount of extra work FAA BFR etc

In fact I would go as far as saying its a shame there isn't a few more like him around.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You would not do that as an FI either......

Differences training do not have any solo elements in them. So for a tailwheel difference you would train them, sign them up and send them off.

Fair point, well made.

G

[blagger]

The student flying on an instructors licence thing is an urban myth - they fly under the ANO Article 52 exemption, which as discussed does need to be as directed by an FI not a CRI.

I have very mixed feelings about CRIs, I know some very experienced and capable ones but have also flown with several who wouldn't even pass a PPL skills test and whose instructional ability was frankly dire. I think a lot of it comes down to how much they do / how current they are and how they are mentored.

[mad_jock]

I know some very experienced and capable ones but have also flown with several who wouldn't even pass a PPL skills test

And how does that differ from some FI's?

[foxmoth]

But similarly, before signing off somebody's tailwheel differences it would be nice to send them off for a few solo circuits before finishing off.


I usually sign them off then send them off to do a few solo circuits, when I think they are close, just fill out the differences slip apart from signature and date then carry it with me, if they are ok I finish it, hand it over and send them off.:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

The student flying on an instructors licence thing is an urban myth - they fly under the ANO Article 52 exemption, which as discussed does need to be as directed by an FI not a CRI.

I have very mixed feelings about CRIs, I know some very experienced and capable ones but have also flown with several who wouldn't even pass a PPL skills test and whose instructional ability was frankly dire. I think a lot of it comes down to how much they do / how current they are and how they are mentored.

If it has to be directed by an FI then surely, for all reasonable purposes, that's requiring his licence, or to use a clear, if technically inaccurate, written shortcut "on his licence".

I've flown with good and bad instructors of all flavours, civil and military, through the 23 years or so that I've been flying. Why should CRIs be any different? I have generally however found that instructors with a lot of flying experience have more to teach me - which seems hardly surprising.

G

[GingerFI]

Quick question Genghis,

You said that 'I can however, unlike an FI(R), work without direct supervision of an FI, and do biennial instructor flights.'

Do you mean that an FI(R) cannot do biennial instructor flights? I was always under the impression that the only requirement for a biennial instructor flight is that it is a flight of an hour or more in duration with an instructor? (which is ludicrous as there is no content requirements although the signature in logbook does somewhat get around this)

Does it matter whether or not they are restricted in terms of offering this instructor hour?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not a question for me really - I'm not an FI(R) but had been told it's not possible. To be honest, as it doesn't affect me, I've not looked it up.

G

[mad_jock]

A restricted can do it.

Although to be honest what they can honestly add to a 1000hour PPL pilot is beyond me.

I know when I was doing them before I had hit triple figures instructing I was the one doing most of the learning not the alleged student.

[dobbin1]

You said that 'I can however, unlike an FI(R), work without direct supervision of an FI, and do biennial instructor flights.'

Do you mean that an FI(R) cannot do biennial instructor flights? I was always under the impression that the only requirement for a biennial instructor flight is that it is a flight of an hour or more in duration with an instructor? (which is ludicrous as there is no content requirements although the signature in logbook does somewhat get around this)

Does it matter whether or not they are restricted in terms of offering this instructor hour?

An FI(R) can do this training hour, but they do need to be supervised.

[IMC1]

Sorry if I have missed this but, what would a CRI need to do to teach LAPL(A)
I assume pass the full FI course but without completing the CPL exams?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sorry if I have missed this but, what would a CRI need to do to teach LAPL(A)
I assume pass the full FI course but without completing the CPL exams?

Seems to be the case.

G

[Whopity]

ie they can teach applied instrument, aero's and at night with no additional sign offs.
Sorry but NO they cannot! To teach instrument you must be an IRI, Night is regarded as ab-initio and outwith the privileges of a CRI and anyone can teach aeros as there is no rating yet.
A CRI will not be able to teach for the LAPL as the privileges are to give instruction to licence holders for additional class and SP type ratings! The requirements for the FI(LAPL) will be far more comprehensive than the CRI course.

[ifitaintboeing]

To answer the original question:

Are there things that being a CRI gives you that a full FI cannot do?

CRI privileges are embedded within the privileges of a FI, therefore a FI may conduct any training for which a CRI holds the privilege.

The only exception being if the FI is restricted, then there is benefit in also holding a CRI so that supervision is not required if training licence holders within the privileges of that CRI.

[mad_jock]

FI can;t instruct at night unless they have the restriction removed be it with a a all ready qualified pilot or not a CRI can fly fly with a none current qualified pilot.

Same with applied instruments

So The FI doesn't quite have the same automatic rights that a CRI has.

[foxmoth]

I understand from a briefing I attended earlier in the year that this will apply to all FIs under the new European regime.:ok:

[Whopity]

MJ From the latest regulationFCL.900 Instructor certificates
(a) General. A person shall only carry out:
(1) flight instruction in aircraft when he/she holds:
(i) a pilot licence issued or accepted in accordance with this Regulation;
(ii) an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given, issued in accordance with this Subpart;FIFCL.905.FI
The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(a) a PPL and LAPL in the appropriate aircraft category;
(b) class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, except for single-pilot high performance complex aeroplanes;
(e) the night rating, provided that the FI:
(1) is qualified to fly at night in the appropriate aircraft category;
(2) has demonstrated the ability to instruct at night to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below(f) a towing or aerobatic rating, provided that such privileges are held and the FI has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below;
(g) an IR in the appropriate aircraft category, provided that the FI has:
(1) at least 200 hours of flight time under IFR, of which up to 50 hours may be instrument ground time in an FFS, an FTD 2/3 or FNPT II;
(2) completed as a student pilot the IRI training course and has passed an assessment of competence for the IRI certificate;CRIFCL.905.CRI CRI — Privileges and conditions
(a) The privileges of a CRI are to instruct for:
(1) the issue, revalidation or renewal of a class or type rating for non-complex non-high performance single-pilot aeroplanes, when the privileges sought by the applicant are to fly in single-pilot operations;
(2) a towing or aerobatic rating for the aeroplane category, provided the CRI holds the relevant rating and has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with FCL.905.FI(i).I don't see any privilege for a CRI to give night or instrument instruction!

[BEagle]

Whopity, I agree. EASA part-FCL seems to have restricted the CRI Rating so that it more accurately reflects its original intent.

[mad_jock]

Opps just reread it.

That tightens it up alot when they actually bring it in.

Also seems now that FI cans do none intial rating flights at night for pax currency.

Currently though the CRI can teach at night and applied instruments and I know a couple that have had a fair few night hours out of getting folk current again.

[Whopity]

Currently though the CRI can teach at night and applied instrumentsNot according to the CAA or JAR-FCL 1.375The privileges of the holder of a CRI(SPA) rating are to instruct licence holders for the issue of a type or class rating for single-pilot aeroplanes.

[Cobalt]

Both CRI and FI can conduct training for issue/revalidation/renewal of a class rating; this HAS to include recurrent training and differences training within a class rating such as retractable or VP prop.

Otherwise, NOBODY would be allowed to instruct for this, making things a bit difficult... because recurrent training and differences training are not mentioned anywhere in instructor privileges.

So the real question is - can any of the above training for issue/revalidation/renewal be legally conducted at night by a CRI [or an FI with the no night instruction]? As long as it is not for the issue of a night rating, there is nothing in the regulations prohibiting this...

[mad_jock]

Thats the way I read it as well.

And there is nothing to stop you doing it in IMC either.

If it were by the letter as quoted.

Everyone would have to do there circuits outside 90 days solo as well, as neither a FI or CRI is allowed to do this.

[Cobalt]

mad_jock,

I am not so sure about the IMC bit, though, for an IMC/IR holder - that would be training for the revalidation/renewal of an IMC rating or IR, and hence not covered.

[mad_jock]

there is no training required unless you have let it lapse.

Or for example a CRI could do differences training for a glass cockpit IMC which lets face it is the only thing glass is really good at.

[Cobalt]

The regs say training for...., not training required for...

However, since voluntary training is not checked, and in any case both instructor and trainee can legally be PIC, I would rather have g1000 ifr training from an experienced CRI who has flown behind it in real life than from an FI who has instructed for the IR, but never ever loaded a flight plan, let a lone a procedure and activated it.. (I showed TWO how to do that - should have charged them instead of paying)

[Whopity]

can any of the above training for issue/revalidation/renewal be legally conducted at night by a CRI There is nothing to prohibit a CRI or an FI conducting revalidation training for a licence holder at night, provided the person they are training and the instructor are both night qualified; what they can't do is training for a night qualification. Only a FI can do that if they have the additional tick to give instruction for a night rating/qualification. As they are not actually training for the issue of a licence or rating, they don't even need to be a FI or a CRI.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A slight absurdity is that a night+instrument qualified & current CRI could do IRI reasonably easily, but would have to do a full FI course to be able to teach for the NQ. It's just how the system is, but not very sensible or logical in that regard.

The FI rating as printed on the licence says "no aerobatics" whilst the CRI rating does not. Ditto "no applied instruments", but in that case the existence of the IRI/IMCRI qualification(s) clarify matters somewhat.

I've taught, as a CRI with the full knowledge of a school CFI and subsequent sight of CAA, the instrument component of the NPPL(SSEA), with nobody batting an eyelid; but I imagine that most FIs have too. Neither I nor an FI should be teaching for, say, the IMC/IR(R) without holding IRI or IMCRI however - I think that's pretty clear.

G

[BillieBob]

The FI rating as printed on the licence says "no aerobatics"Which is entirely meaningless as an FI rating is not currently required in order to give aerobatics training. The privilege to give instruction in aerobatics is included in the licence and not the FI rating. This will, of course, no longer be the case after 17 Sep when an instructor certificate will be required for the delivery of any and all flight training in an aircraft.

[IMC1]

Having read through CAP804 etc, I can't establish what is required to be an
FI(LAPL) verses an FI(PPL) etc. Is it complete the full FI course without the CPL writtens? or something else?

Many thanks IMC

[BEagle]

The pre-requisite for a FI applicant to have passed the CPL exams does not apply to a PPL(A) holder wishing to instruct at LAPL(A) level only.

All other pre-requisites, such as experience, still apply. The FI course is the same and the pass standard is the same whether you wish to instruct at LAPL or PPL level.

Incidentally, amongst other requirements, an IRI under part-FCL will need to have achieved 800 hours of 'flight under IFR'; to provide instruction for the IR, an FI will need to meet similar requirments but to have achieved a lower figure of 200 hrs of 'flight under IFR'.....

Hence AOPA has proposed an IRI (Restricted) certificate to the CAA, to be included in a part-FCL licence, which will require the same pre-requisites as the current 'removal of no applied instrument' restrictions.

Finally, don't think that, just because the 'no applied instrument' caveat will disappear from your part-FCL licence on 17 Sep, you'll be able to provide instrument instruction with no further requirements! See 'FCL.905.FI FI Privileges and Conditions' in CAP 804 Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 1.

[Whopity]

The FI rating as printed on the licence says "no aerobatics" whilst the CRI rating does not.There is a very simple explanation for that. The CRI was a new JAA rating and if you look at a JAA FI rating, there is no such thing as "no aerobatics"; "no night"; or "no applied instruments" either. These are hangovers from the pre JAA UK National system that continued because the CAA's computer had not been programmed to cope with the change. Each JAA rating has privileges as defined in JAR-FCL; just because it doesn't have a UK style limitation, doesn't mean that the holder has carte blanch to do what they want, they only have privileges as defined in JAR-FCL 1 or 2. If the holder wishes to add privileges, then they must obtain the relevant qualification.

The UK system was based upon removing "limitations" whilst the JAA system is based upon adding additional qualifications. At least under EASA, the CAA will have to finally get rid of the old UK "limitations"

Think back a few years, a Unrestricted FI was one who could give instrument instruction, because the Applied IF Course (exactly the same as the IRI course) was the only way you could upgrade from AFI to FI and remove the AFI restrictions. Ah, the good old days!

[S-Works]

My licence has exactly what I can teach on it, next to my FI(A) it states,PPL, CPL Night (Unrestricted) My IRI allows me to teach IR and IMCr and next to my CRI it just states Nil restriction as I have both SE/ME privileges.

I have a few other oddballs thrown in for good measure but that's the gist!

[impetus]

As a new Class Rating Instructor I am trying to fully understand what I can and can't do. This seems to be a more complicated area than I envisaged and not helped by the new EASA regulations.

I was asked the other day if I could do the differences training for someone with an old UK PPL SLMG in order for them to fly SEP. As they have a licence and that licence has not lapsed I would think that this is within my remit?

I have also been asked if I can provide training someone who allowed their licence to lapse some years ago?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've been a fairly active CRI for 2 years, by all means drop me an email (not a PM please) if you want to talk through any of the issues.

NPPL(SLMG) [or NPPL(M) ]--> NPPL(SSEA) is within your remit, but NPPL --> EASA-PPL is not, for odd historic reasons not worth exploring as it seems unlikely to change.

You do however need to do it within a training organisation, and they will need an examiner, you can't just sign those ones off as differences training.

Training of a lapsed PPL to allow them to revalidate by skill test / proficiency check is also possible, but as the requirement is that they need to do training as required by the CFI of a training organisation, you need to be working within a training organisation, you can't just freelance it.

G

[Whopity]

an old UK PPL SLMGThis is a licence that only permits the holder to fly a SLMG; you cannot add ratings to it. In order to fly SEP then they will either need an EASA licence or an NPPL to be issued.

[impetus]

Thank you both.

G, I will email with some queries. Thanks.

Interesting about the old UK PPL SLMG.

What am I able to do outside of an ATO?

[Genghis the Engineer]

What am I able to do outside of an ATO?

BFRs, differences training and syndicate / rental checkouts or currency mainly, plus aerobatics and any kind of general skill improvement for existing qualified pilots - which is actually quite a lot.

G

[ifitaintboeing]

plus aerobatics

...in EASA aircraft until 08th April 2015.

ifitaint...

[172510]

Several posters said that a CRI has privileges that a FI(R) has not.
FCL.910.FI FI – Restricted privileges
(a) An FI shall have his/her privileges limited to conducting flight instruction under the supervision of an FI for the same category of aircraft nominated by the ATO for this purpose, in the following cases:
(1) for the issue of the PPL, SPL, BPL and LAPL;
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(3) for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, class and group extensions in the case of balloons and class extensions in the case of sailplanes;
(4) for the night, towing or aerobatic ratings.

My understanding is that a FI(R) may, out of an ATO/RTF, and unsupervised, train for differences (TW etc.) and the do the one hour SEP revalidation flight. Is it your understanding as well?

[dobbin1]

Several posters said that a CRI has privileges that a FI(R) has not.
FCL.910.FI FI – Restricted privileges
(a) An FI shall have his/her privileges limited to conducting flight instruction under the supervision of an FI for the same category of aircraft nominated by the ATO for this purpose, in the following cases:
(1) for the issue of the PPL, SPL, BPL and LAPL;
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(3) for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, class and group extensions in the case of balloons and class extensions in the case of sailplanes;
(4) for the night, towing or aerobatic ratings.

My understanding is that a FI(R) may, out of an ATO/RTF, and unsupervised, train for differences (TW etc.) and the do the one hour SEP revalidation flight. Is it your understanding as well?

No. I asked this question when I was a restricted instructor and the response from the CAA was very clear. As a restricted instructor you must be supervised for any training that you do.

[172510]

No. I asked this question when I was a restricted instructor and the response from the CAA was very clear. As a restricted instructor you must be supervised for any training that you do.
FCL.910.FI FI – Restricted privileges
(a) An FI shall have his/her privileges limited to conducting flight instruction under the supervision of an FI for the same category of aircraft nominated by the ATO for this purpose, in the following cases:
(1) for the issue of the PPL, SPL, BPL and LAPL;
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(3) for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, class and group extensions in the case of balloons and class extensions in the case of sailplanes;
(4) for the night, towing or aerobatic ratings.

It is specifically written that the restriction applies only in certain cases: I infer that there must be cases where the restriction does not apply, otherwise the wording would have been simpler, such as "any training done must be supervised".

[Genghis the Engineer]

for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft,

But, as a CRI, I don't need supervision for that, so there is a difference.

G

[Whopity]

When JAR-FCL first appeared the privileges of the FI included those of a CRI, but it was very quickly changed. I have never heard any explanation of why!

[mad_jock]

Because there was a bun fight when someone was instructing the one hour dual unsupervised and restricted i heard and got reported by another school on the same field.

[Whopity]

I doubt the JAA were influenced by a "bub fight"!

[mad_jock]

I suspect they were when the person the bun fight was with was one of ones on the committees.

I believe it went "you can't do that, its illegal"

"Yes I can"

" I am telling you, you can't"

"Here is the reference that I have CRI rights which doesn't require supervision"

huffing puffing and you require supervision etc but the CRI not requiring supervision card kept being played.

Then 2 weeks later the rules changed with no notice or consultation.

If its true or not I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.