Restricted FI privileges

[NorthSouth]

Can a restricted FI carry out the one hour dual instructional flights for SEPL revalidation? And if so, since the 'trainee' is already a qualified and current licensed pilot, can they be done without the direct supervision of a supervising FI(A)?

The old CAP54 said that, for AFIs, the supervising FI had to be "present during the takeoff and landing at the aerodrome from which the instruction is to begin and end" but it's not clear if that applies to JAA FI(A) (Restricted) holders too.

[NorthSouth]

squirrel: I have looked in LASORS, and can't find any text relating to supervising FI(A)s having to be present at the airfield for restricted FI(A)s. As far as I can see the only text on that is the part of ANO Schedule 8 describing restrictions applying to a UK AFI holder. The section on JAA FI(A) holders that follows straight after that doesn't say anything on the physical presence of the supervising FI(A).

Re presence at the airfield, dual cross-countries that end at a different airfield from the one they took off from must be very rare so I don't suppose this is a problem in practice.

Where did you get the information that trial lessons don't count towards the 100hrs for removal of restrictions? The only thing I'm aware of is in AIC 30/1999, which says you have to "demonstrate coverage of the full breadth of instructing experience and of the supervised solo flights required for the grant of the PPL(A) set out in JAR-FCL Part 1, AMC FCL 1.125." That surely doesn't mean that every time you teach Ex.3 and 4 the CAA ignores it. I always took it to mean that you have to show you've taught every exercise in the syllabus, so even if you have, say, 60 hours of Ex.3 and 4s and 40hrs of everything else, you would still qualify as long as you've done them all. I haven't totalled my 3s and 4s but I guess they're a pretty high proportion because at our club trial lessons far outweigh PPL student training in terms of hours.

[StrateandLevel]

A Restricted FI can only operate inder the supervision of an unrestricted FI, thats what Restricted means and what the Law requires.

The question of supervision is one that has never been tested in the courts so nobody can really be sure. At the end of the day if the supervision is conducted in a responsible manner, a court would not consider it unreasonable for a supervising FI to be at the base aerodrome whilst a FI(R) takes a student to another airfield. If he stays there all day and conducts a number of flights then it could be argued that there is no supervision. i.e the flight begins at A, lands at B but ends back at A.

If the supervising FI is working elswhere or down the market doing his shopping whilst your student crashes, a court would probably consider that there was inadequate supervision; and you could then be involved in subsequent civil litigation if there had been a fatality.

The ANO has not changed, so the implementation of JAR-FCL is not relevant. For AFI read FI(R).

The reference to Trial Lessons is as NS says, some but not all. How can you be assessed as competent to give instruction unsupervised, and supervise others if you have never taught anything but trial lessons? Its also an attempt to get the FI(R) a fair deal and not be given all the dross. You don't need to have taught All exercises in the qualifying 100.

[NorthSouth]

S&L:

You say "The ANO has not changed, so the implementation of JAR-FCL is not relevant. For AFI read FI(R)."

But the ANO has changed, precisely to implement JAR-FCL. The result is, specifically, that there are differences between the privileges of an AFI and the privileges of a Restricted FI(A).

Schedule 8 Part B - Ratings - has had new sections inserted for all the JAA ratings e.g. Night qualification, Flight instructor rating. The text for the Flight instructor rating (aeroplane) - Restricted privileges - is different from the text of the paragraphs setting out the privileges and restrictions for the Assistant flying instructor's rating. The text stating that the supervising instructor must be present during the takeoff and landing only relates to the AFI privileges and restrictions. There is no equivalent provision in the text setting out FI(A) restricted privileges. It only says "under the supervision of the holder of a flight instructor (aeroplane) rating approved for this purpose."

Interestingly, the literal reading of the text suggests that AFIs can only be supervised by UK QFIs and JAA FI(A) restricteds only by JAA FI(A) unrestricteds. But maybe we shouldn't go down that road....

[FormationFlyer]

Can a restricted FI carry out the one hour dual instructional flights for SEPL revalidation? And if so, since the 'trainee' is already a qualified and current licensed pilot, can they be done without the direct supervision of a supervising FI(A)?

Right. Im gonna answer the main questions directly :)

1. Yes you can carry out that training.
2. No. Because you cannot exercise the privileges of your instructor rating without supervision - that is what restrictions are all about.

Incidentally, the rules regarding instructing club/group members still apply even if the pilot concerned is qualified on type.

You log P1, the other piot must log Dual or PUT.

Hope this helps,
FF

[NorthSouth]

Thanks FF, confirms what I thought.

[Mark 1]

A curiosity of the system is that somebody with a CRI qualification can do the SEP revalidation instruction without being subject to supervisory restrictions.
A CRI does have greater minimum experience requirements, but has a much shorter training programme.

[redbar1]

Mark 1,

I know this is a bit beside the thread, but just to satisfy the curious:

The main difference in privileges between the FI and the CRI is that the CRI never can instruct towards a License, all he/she can do is only instruct towards a class rating or a SPA type rating.

To give instruction towards a License you'll have to be an FI. The CRI was never intended to do this, hence the much shorter course.

The one hour of instruction connected to revalidation of a SEP rating is not really the important issue for the revalidation, the important thing is the experience the pilot already has maintained through his/her 12 hrs, 6 PIC, etc. The instruction flight is merely to verify this.

This instruction flight can also be susbstitued with ANY other prof check - say on a 777, wich just proves the point that the real basis for revalidating this way is the maintenance of capabilities on the SEP class rating by actually flying the things actively.

The JARs aren't always curiosities :ok:

Cheers,

[DFC]

Most of the problems come down to what "supervision" is.

The training industry interpreted the CAA requirements prior to JAR, as requiring the Supervising FI to be present at the airfield.

There was no requirement for the Supervising FI to observe any of the activities of the AFI. In fact, the Supervising FI could be sitting in a darkened room for the full period and the CAA apperently would be happy.

If the AFI was completing a dual triangular cross country i.e. two away landings then that AFI would land and subsequently depart from two airfields without the type of supervision the training industry had interpreted as being required by the CAA.

The CAA also require Supervision of all Commercial Flights by the appropriate manager. This is not interpreted as being a requirement for the Chief Pilot or Ops Manager to be present at the airfield.

Under JAR-FCL as in many other countries prior to JAR, ther is no requirement for the FI to be present in order to supervise the FI(R).

After all, common sense would dictate that if the FI(R) and Student have an accident, then unless the FI is in the aircraft with them, there is little they can do to directly affect the outcome.

UNder JAR-FCL, supervision can be completed through proper communication and clear designation of roles as I have been doing for many years.

There is no problem with the Supervising FI speaking with the FI(R) by telephone prior to the proposed training flight(s) to discuss the weather, aircraft serviceability, student progress or lack of and lesson(s) etc. However, the supervising FI must be available if the FI(R) seeks or requires advice or assistance......so the FI can't be down the pub!!

Provided that the supervising FI is also active at the training base then there will naturally be opportunitiesfrom time to time for the FI to observe the FI(R) in action. There is also ample opportunity for other FI's to observe the actions of FI(R)s and if necessary, provide guidance.

An FI is required to fly with the student prior to 1st solo, 1 solo xcountry and 1st night solo. There may also be specific checks written into the sylabus. Thus the FI can check the progress of the students the FI(R) is training and thereby check what the FI)R) is doing.

On top of that, the FI(R) will have to complete another flight test on the first renewal of their rating so the authority can have a check as well.

I never understood the rationalle in sending a PPL off unsupervised in a training school aircraft with 3 passengers in what ever weather they decide. But, if that PPL goes through further training and a further flight test, they must have their flying supervised by a FI.

IMHO, the supervision is required to ensure that the required material is being taught in the correct manner..........not that the pilot can taxi, take-off and land the aircraft (which is all you can observe from the tower).

Oh and the 1 hour flight for a PPL with an FI(R)........yep, no problem....but the supervising FI needs to be aware of what the FI(R) is doing. Aware being the appropriate word.

I don't think however that the FI(R) could do the 1 hour on an aircraft that they do not normally instruct on........i.e. instructor flies C150/C172s..........not the right person to do the 1 hour in a PA28.......even if the P1 is fully current.

Regards,

DFC

[redbar1]

DFC,

I don't think however that the FI(R) could do the 1 hour on an aircraft that they do not normally instruct on........i.e. instructor flies C150/C172s..........not the right person to do the 1 hour in a PA28.......even if the P1 is fully current.

I ask this because I am unsure what you mean.

As a former HT for many years, I fully agree on the idealism expressed in the first part of your wiew.

However, as regulations go, either the FI is qualified on the A/C or he/she is not. Quote JAR-FCL 1.310:

(a) Pre-requisites. All instructors shall hold at least the licence, rating and qualification for which instruction is being given (unless specified otherwise) and shall be entitled to act as pilot-in-command of the aircraft during such training.

So I assume you by 'P1' mean the pilot about to revalidate, not the actual PIC on this flight.

Cheers,

[DFC]

Redbar1,

Yes, I was referring to the pilot who is undergoing the dual flight and thus would be operating "Dual" on the training flight and of course the FI(R) would be P1 for that flight.

The point I was making is that for the Dual Flight, the instructor must have suficient experience to be able to provide a valuable exercise and make recoemndations appropriate to the situation.

There can also be a problem of "cross cockpit gradient" when less experienced FI and FI(R)s complete the dual flight with more experienced pilots. Picture the CFI having to complete their 1 hour dual flight with an FI(R)!!

However, going back to the supervision, perhaps having the supervising FI present at all times can have a detremental effect on the progres of the FI;

Picture the following -

New FI(R) starts operating with an RTF after a standardisation checkout. The Supervising FI is always present and checks the suitability of the weather, ensures that the aircraft are serviceable and keeps an eye on the operations desk who meet the students and take bookings and basically makes all the decisions.

In the above "cotton wool" environment, the FI(R) can reach the rule book requirement for removal of the restriction but have never made a decision with regard to weather suitability etc.

If that FI(R) has the restriction removed, they can then go elsewhere and set up their own RTF.......but do they have the experience to operate safely without any supervision?

A much better form of supervision is where the FI(R) makes the decision but lets the FI know what that decision is thus ensuring that the supervising FI knows what the FI(R) is up to and also, the FI can step in to prevent the FI(R) from doing something they should not do.

The best way to sum the situation up is to look at it like this;

The CAA supervise all aviation activities in the UK. Is there a CAA Official present at every take-off and landing completed by every pilot?.....No........but they do quite a good job of supervision don't they.

Regards,

DFC

[redbar1]

DFC,

I wholeheartedly share your wiews both on the "cockpit gradient" and the decisionmaking training!

Unless exposed to decisionmaking in a responsible manner (such as the one you describe), the new FI will be lacking a basic asset. Even now in post-FCL-times, a number of JAA states still insist on inspecting and approving both the RTF's and their HT's, partly for this reason.

Cheers,