EASA UK NR Currency

[squidie]

Morning all,


Please can someone tell me what the current regulations are for NR currency? From my understanding it’s the standard 3 T/Os and landings in 90 days where one has to be at night for PX flying but does the EASA standards change this at all?


Thanks

[Whopity]

There is none! What you are referring to is the requirements for the carriage of passengers.

[Mach Jump]

...EASA standards change this at all?

No. As Whopity says, There has never been any currency requirement for a Night Rating in itself, only the one for carrying passengers, and nothing has changed under EASA except that we call it a Night Rating again rather than a Night Qualification.


MJ:ok:

[squidie]

Thanks chaps!

[thing]

Doesn't a rating need revalidating? I thought that was the difference between a rating and a qualification. Not arguing the point about the night rating/qualification, just curious as to the meaning of the words.

[Prop swinger]

Some do, some don't. The night & aerobatic ratings don't, a tow rating has what are effectively recency requirements, a mountain rating has a definite 2 year validity.

[thing]

Ah. Thank you.

[Mach Jump]

Thing.

There's something familiar about what you say. I think that when JAA was introduced, that may have been the reason they insisted on refering to it as a 'Night Qualification', but EASA have reverted to the Night Rating.


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Now there's an interesting question.

[devil's advocate]
As a CRI I couldn't teach for the NQ - as it was a qualification, and I could only teach for ratings.

If it's become a rating again, does that mean that I can potentially gain the abilty to teach for it?[/devil's advocate]

G

[Mach Jump]

Genghis.

The logic of your argument seems inescapable.

The absurdities of the CRI Rating will never cease to mystify me.

There will soon be no point in doing the full FI Course at all. :eek:


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I am very fond of my CRI rating, although will get around to the FI sooner or later.

But absurdities abound in it.

I can (and have done) teach NPPL(M)--> NPPL(SSEA)

I can't however teach NPPL(SSEA) --> EASA PPL(A)

I can teach for any differences training.

I can do biennials

I can instruct for differences training at night so long as I and the student hold NQ.

But I can't (unless it really has changed) teach for the NQ/NR/thingy.


I can sign somebody off for tailwheel, but couldn't do a trial flight, despite having a CPL that would let me do tourist flights under a cheapo A-A AOC.

I have 3-figure instructional hours, but would get no concession from the requirements for an FI course. Nor, if I did that course, would the hours count for going from FI(R)-->FI (at-least, I don't think so, less sure on that particular item).




I enjoy the privileges I have, do my best to exercise them as professionally as possible, and guard them jealously. But consistent, it really isn't.


Meself, I'd bin minimum flying hours on any course, and just demand a course completion certificate and a skill test.

G

[Mach Jump]

I think we are of the same mind on this, Genghis.

I would be inclined to go even further. If someone can pass the test/s and writen exam/s for any Licence or Rating, they should get it.

How they contrived to reach the standard required is really irrelevant.

I think that we would have to take a really hard look at our exams and tests though, to make sure they really were a comprehensive, and realistic test of the standard.


Sadly, we seem to be moving inexorably in the opposite direction. :(


MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

Ghengis

The priviliges of the CRI certificate is to 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).
So Night Rating does not come into it however; if you and the student are both night rated, there is nothing to prevent you conducting the training you can do, at night.

I can do biennialsThat is an FAA thing! no such thing under EASA

[Genghis the Engineer]

That is an FAA thing! no such thing under EASA
Semantics strictly. We all know that the 2-yearly flight with an instructor isn't officially called a "biennial", on the other hand it's known and familiar terminology so we all use it.

Like "group A" - ancient no longer applicable terminology, but still useful. And how often do you hear "QFI" used in a civil context !

But yes, I take your point that there's nothing "class" about a night rating.



I would be inclined to go even further. If someone can pass the test/s and writen exam/s for any Licence or Rating, they should get it.
For the vast majority of qualifications, I'd agree with you. For FI I'd take it a little differently, as I think that the skill test can only really cherry pick a few exercises and confirm that the candidate can teach them successfully - so if no other, that one needs a course completion certificate to prove that every aspect of *how to teach* the syllabus has been shown to the candidate. I'd certainly want to cover everything when I do my FI course - just that I'd like to (have the right to) be able to do it faster than the published minimum hours if I prove capable of absorbing it at that rate.

G

[mad_jock]

Personally I think the CRI was invented to satisfy certain country's.

It was also as well intended to be for commercial single engine operations to fill a hole to allow training to occur without a FI being involved ie to allow line training to occur in a single pilot aircraft.

As usual the Brits have taken something and been creative with what it allows. Which isn't what the creators intended.

I suspect that CRI was meant for AOC operations/glider towing/meat bombing and not PPL flying.

G have a look at the gliding instructor setup. Its hugely more professional and staged than the powered setup.

[BEagle]

G-t-E wrote: Semantics strictly. We all know that the 2-yearly flight with an instructor isn't officially called a "biennial", on the other hand it's known and familiar terminology so we all use it.

Like "group A" - ancient no longer applicable terminology, but still useful. And how often do you hear "QFI" used in a civil context !

But yes, I take your point that there's nothing "class" about a night rating.

As an instructor with 3-figure instructional hours, perhaps you might consider using only the correct terminology, to set an example for your students to adopt?

Incidentally, it is highly likely that the Aircrew Regulation will shortly be amended to include the following proposal:

In FCL.905.CRI, in point (a), the following paragraph 3 is added:

‘(3) extension of LAPL(A) privileges to another class or variant of aeroplane.’

[Genghis the Engineer]

How wrong was my terminology? I didn't say "biennial flight review" - I said "biennial", implying "biennial flight with an instructor", in my mind at-least.

But I will admit to still using "group A" with some regularity.:suspect:



I'm sure that you're right Mad Jock - the CRI was intended for far simpler purposes than it gets used by us imaginative Brits. But, perhaps like the IMCR versus the expensive IR, it can be reasonably shown to offer a significant and affordable benefit, without (so far, that I've heard of) causing problems on the back of it.

However, playing devils advocate again, is there any sound argument why as a CRI I couldn't (apart from the regulations) do the night instructor training assessment, to be able to teach for the NQ/NR? It seems to me a rather simpler task than many a CRI is permitted to do.

G

[Level Attitude]

I can instruct for differences training at night so long as I and the student hold NQI hold that a CRI may not instruct at night at all. There was an exceptionally long Thread on this a while ago and I do not want to resurrect it.

However what I do not understand is those who say a CRI can instruct at night - but only if the student is already qualified to fly at night.

It is the CRI who will be PIC, not the student. They will not be conducting training towards the issue of a Night Rating, only training which falls within the remit of CRI privileges.

So why do people think it matters whether the student holds an NR or not?

[BackPacker]

So why do people think it matters whether the student holds an NR or not?

Because the student would possibly be counting those hours towards the experience requirements for the issue of an NR? After all, it is dual instruction, and it is done at night.

[mad_jock]

So why do people think it matters whether the student holds an NR or not?

Because although we normally talk about CRI for SEP there is also the Situation that CRI MEP are training Instrument ratings in a twin with IRI.

I flew 50% of my IR at night.


Again it goes back to the CRI being invented for commercial operations for training. Not PPL level VFR training after license issue.

[Level Attitude]

Because the student would possibly be counting those hours towards the experience requirements for the issue of an NR? After all, it is dual instruction, and it is done at night.But they cannot.
The experience requirements for the issue of a Night Rating require 5 hours of instruction/supervision by an FI at an ATO, and the ATO will have to state that the required experience has been met.

Just because a student may misunderstand what the training they are receiving can be used for does not affect the legality, or not, of that training.

Just because 1 Day, 1 Week, 1 Month, 1 Year or several Years later a student may attempt to misrepresent their prior training does not affect the legality, or not, of that prior training.

An independent IRI is perfectly entitled to train a candidate towards an IR, and could even get them up to Test standard. However only a percentage (0% prior to the CBM-IR) of that training can be used towards the initial issue of an IR.

[fireflybob]

Whilst on this topic can the night landing to qualify for the landing recency in 90 days etc be conducted by a flying instructor with a student on board? (As a student is not a "passenger" as such).

I seem to recall this was debated before and have done a search but cannot find anything.

[Mach Jump]

Hi Bob.

Yes.

A student is a member of the crew, not a passenger.

If the student were a passenger, and was paying for the flight, we would have to have an AOC to carry out instruction.


MJ:ok:

[fireflybob]

MJ, Thanks - we just need the weather now!

Bob