Aerobatic Restriction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerobatic Restriction
Anyone know of a good FIC who can lift the restriction? I'm a reasonably experienced aerobatic pilot based in the South of England, and I would prefer to do the 5hrs in a taildragger of some description hopefully with an instructor with display/compatition experience... I know Freestyle Aviation are probably the best in the business, but I'm looking for something further South than that if poss...Thanks
There may well be more demand for the removal of the non-aerobatic restriction, following the CAA's latest clarification concerning aerobatics 'demonstrated' during 'trial flights' in Trainingcom 1/2005....:
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 excercising 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.
So - any of these 'aerobatic experience' trial flying lessons obviously require that the pilot must hold a FI rating which includes the privilege of instruction in aerobatics. Hitherto there seems to have been a misperception that 'demonstrating' aerobatics to a trial lesson 'student' was somehow considered to be something other than aerobatic instruction.
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 excercising 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.
So - any of these 'aerobatic experience' trial flying lessons obviously require that the pilot must hold a FI rating which includes the privilege of instruction in aerobatics. Hitherto there seems to have been a misperception that 'demonstrating' aerobatics to a trial lesson 'student' was somehow considered to be something other than aerobatic instruction.
Waldo: is Old Sarum (near Salisbury) in the right area? if so speak to David Scouller on 01722-322525. His display and competition days were quite a while ago but he's hugely experienced (CFS, ran ETPS, ....)
BEagle: I was surprised by that para in Training.com. It's always seemed pretty obvious that an aero FI rating would be needed for aeros on any instructional flight - have there really been lots of people "teaching" aeros without the tick on their rating?
HFD
BEagle: I was surprised by that para in Training.com. It's always seemed pretty obvious that an aero FI rating would be needed for aeros on any instructional flight - have there really been lots of people "teaching" aeros without the tick on their rating?
HFD
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- have there really been lots of people "teaching" aeros without the tick on their rating?
I gather that some people with ordinary FI ratings have allegedly indeed been 'demonstrating' aerobatics whilst giving 'trial lessons' to their 'students'......
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Westward TV
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole aerobatic thing really does need a bit more thought IMHO.
Nothing stopping a freshly minted PPL going out and playing silly buggers with a C150 acrobat.
Nothing stopping an instructor, who is not aerobatic qualified, going on a check flight, and the checkee decided he fancies doing a few loops and rolls. Instructor can log the flight
Nothing stopping the instructor, who has never been upside down in his life, performing aerobatic flights with a student onboard. Legal, as long as he doesn't log it as an instruction flight.
The AOPA syllabus is 10 hours, yet the restriction removal is 5 hours, with no stated experience requirement.
Playing devils advocate here, but perhaps there should be a qualification issued for aerobatics. Based on the AOPA course and you can't be an aerobatic instructor without the qualification before hand.
It unfortunatly goes against my belief of making flying more accessable. ho hum.
Nothing stopping a freshly minted PPL going out and playing silly buggers with a C150 acrobat.
Nothing stopping an instructor, who is not aerobatic qualified, going on a check flight, and the checkee decided he fancies doing a few loops and rolls. Instructor can log the flight
Nothing stopping the instructor, who has never been upside down in his life, performing aerobatic flights with a student onboard. Legal, as long as he doesn't log it as an instruction flight.
The AOPA syllabus is 10 hours, yet the restriction removal is 5 hours, with no stated experience requirement.
Playing devils advocate here, but perhaps there should be a qualification issued for aerobatics. Based on the AOPA course and you can't be an aerobatic instructor without the qualification before hand.
It unfortunatly goes against my belief of making flying more accessable. ho hum.
"Nothing stopping an instructor, who is not aerobatic qualified, going on a check flight, and the checkee decided he fancies doing a few loops and rolls. Instructor can log the flight"
Nope - that would constitute aerobatic instruction and would be contrary to the FI's rating privileges.
Nope - that would constitute aerobatic instruction and would be contrary to the FI's rating privileges.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the info. I've been flying aeros for a good few years and doing flights for punters in aero and vintage aircraft...now I find i'm not supposed to do a loop and a roll without 5 hours in an aerobat...thats why I want an FIC who can make the training worthwhile...unf most of the good aeros instructors aren't FIC's...shame..
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waldo, you may find that the course isn't actually necessary. I got my restriction lifted on the basis of previous experience (albeit as a JEFTS instructor) and a flight test. I think there is scope for discretion - perhaps a call to the CAA might clarify?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waldo
My boss can do it in Bournemouth. We have a Siai Marchetti F260 here, but he might be able to get something else, or you could find an aircraft seperately. Alternatively I think one of the CAA examiners here is a former competition pilot, even a former champion, and one is an old UAS instructor of mine and an ex-F4 pilot, so I am sure could teach you something new.
Send me a PM if you want contact details on any of them.
My boss can do it in Bournemouth. We have a Siai Marchetti F260 here, but he might be able to get something else, or you could find an aircraft seperately. Alternatively I think one of the CAA examiners here is a former competition pilot, even a former champion, and one is an old UAS instructor of mine and an ex-F4 pilot, so I am sure could teach you something new.
Send me a PM if you want contact details on any of them.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course this like the IMC teaching restriction is a local UK restriction. Pilots instructing in the UK on the basis of non-UK JAA licenses will not have the same restriction.
The CAA's comment in the training com will not affect all the instructors teaching in the UK.
Regards,
DFC
The CAA's comment in the training com will not affect all the instructors teaching in the UK.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: West Wales
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was intrigued to read the CAA Trainingcom on this topic. A number of years ago I was an instructor at Oxford and we ran a course for screening would-be pilots for a Middle East air force. The course included basic aerobatics but the company policy was that the instructors did not need the aero instructor endorsement as the tuition was not towards an aerobatic rating. I presume that this was agreed by CAA at the time and, indeed, it reflected my interpretation of the relevant section of the Air Navigation Order.
I can only assume that this new interpretation comes from the European/JARS dimension.
I can only assume that this new interpretation comes from the European/JARS dimension.
This is a typically pointless piece of bureacracy, which has no standing in JAR-FCL. It is only necessary to hold a FI rating if the instruction being given is for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence or the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in that licence (ANO Article 36). Since there is no aerobatic rating or qualification that can be included in a UK or JAA licence, it is not necessary to hold a FI rating to give aerobatic instruction.
In the case quoted by Pirate, one must assume that the training given to the prospective military pilots was not for the purpose of becoming qualified for a licence (he says that it was for the purpose of 'screening') and, therefore, the instructors concerned would not have needed to exercise the privileges of their FI ratings and any aerobatic restrictions therein would be irrelevant.
A trial lesson, on the other hand, is a part of the PPL course and, therefore, the instructrion is given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence. The trial lesson must, therefore, be conducted by the holder of a FI rating who must act only within the privileges of that rating.
In the case quoted by Pirate, one must assume that the training given to the prospective military pilots was not for the purpose of becoming qualified for a licence (he says that it was for the purpose of 'screening') and, therefore, the instructors concerned would not have needed to exercise the privileges of their FI ratings and any aerobatic restrictions therein would be irrelevant.
A trial lesson, on the other hand, is a part of the PPL course and, therefore, the instructrion is given for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence. The trial lesson must, therefore, be conducted by the holder of a FI rating who must act only within the privileges of that rating.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feel free to shoot me now in flames if you so wish but here is my understanding of the law.
Under the old UK licencing requirements the FI rating came back with restrictions (so to speak) on night flying, applied instrument and aerobatics. A course had to be completed to lift said restrictions - applied instrument requiring the 200hr IFR (50hr IF) and an unrestricted FI.
Under JAR FCL and CAP 393 - as the fancy green book isn't the ANO - the CAA no longer issue UK FI ratings - they are all JAR instructor ratings.
The JAA in their wisdom do not place a "no aerobatics" restriction on FI ratings - and as such one can teach aeros with no training in them at all.
I personally do not agree with the JAA standpoint or that the CAA have succombed to their preaching on such things but legally one can bugger about teaching Bloggs aerobatics whether we as instructors can tell our arse from our elbows or not on the subject.
The 01/2005 Trainingcom happend to bring our attention to the subject so we dug around through the books to study it in more depth - Lasors, JAR-FCL and CAP 393 all got a good looking at in the process.
I might add though that David Scouller is a good guy who knows his stuff and even if no longer a legal requirement getting the gen off one of the good guys is no bad thing - they'll try and kill you S&L let alone upside down and close to the stall.
Under the old UK licencing requirements the FI rating came back with restrictions (so to speak) on night flying, applied instrument and aerobatics. A course had to be completed to lift said restrictions - applied instrument requiring the 200hr IFR (50hr IF) and an unrestricted FI.
Under JAR FCL and CAP 393 - as the fancy green book isn't the ANO - the CAA no longer issue UK FI ratings - they are all JAR instructor ratings.
The JAA in their wisdom do not place a "no aerobatics" restriction on FI ratings - and as such one can teach aeros with no training in them at all.
I personally do not agree with the JAA standpoint or that the CAA have succombed to their preaching on such things but legally one can bugger about teaching Bloggs aerobatics whether we as instructors can tell our arse from our elbows or not on the subject.
The 01/2005 Trainingcom happend to bring our attention to the subject so we dug around through the books to study it in more depth - Lasors, JAR-FCL and CAP 393 all got a good looking at in the process.
I might add though that David Scouller is a good guy who knows his stuff and even if no longer a legal requirement getting the gen off one of the good guys is no bad thing - they'll try and kill you S&L let alone upside down and close to the stall.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
D-Q:
Well I'm afraid I'm the smart-arse who has precisely those words imprinted on his FI(A) rating. Explain please!
NS
The JAA in their wisdom do not place a "no aerobatics" restriction on FI ratings
NS
