25 solo sign-offs

[Whopity]

The only difference is that the wording for the FI(R) was copied directly from JAR-FCL. The level of supervision that a court would consider reasonable is likely to be the same in both cases. There will soon be an AIC qualifying the level of supervision expected.

[homeguard]

Law

I too like many believe that the current 100 hours and 25 solo 'sign offs' is insufficient to become unrestricted as an FI. However the ANO is more than a photcopy of the JAA JAR. It is a document passed by parliament and scrutinised, what is written is intended.
If some have changed their minds then parliament will need to be persuaded and a new act or an amendment to it passed - some chance of that. An AIC will make little difference for it can only express that which some would like to have it be but a recommendation may be forthcoming, just the same, which could and will probably be ignored.

[BillieBob]

There will soon be an AIC qualifying the level of supervision expected.

...and not before time, after all it's only, what, 8 years since JAR-FCL 1 (and the FI(R)) was implemented? The behaviour of the CAA both in this area and in the botched implementation of Amendment 6 to JAR-FCL 1 and Amendment 4 to JAR-FCL 2 is nothing short of scandalous.

There was a time when the CAA was run by professionals for professionals - it appears that those days are long gone and that the Belgrano is now inhabited by a bunch of incompetent time servers whose knowledge of professional aviation extends no further than the next business class ticket to Florida. Roll on EASA, at least we know ahead of time that we will then be regulated by know-nothing bureaucrats.

[BEagle]

"There will soon be an AIC qualifying the level of supervision expected."

Really? Have you conducted a Regulatory Impact Assessment and industry-wide consultation?

Or will the AIC be 'advice' dreamed up by people with no current PPL instructional experience in a struggling industry?

[tescoapp]

Personally I was never happy with supervising the school when I was down to disappear off on long nav ex's.

Then there is the other days when you find out that you have been supervising, but knowbody has bothered telling you.

The issue with AIC's needs to be sorted as well. You have some very qualified examiner examiners, who state that you must follow the AIC's. And there others who say you don't have to bother they are only recomendations and have no legal standing but I would advise you to follow them. But of course in both cases the AIC apply's to everone but them. A bit like the differences training for different types of twin. I have yet to hear of a MEP examiner to refuse to test someone in a type they haven't flown before.

I haven't yet heard of any court cases which have set a precedent to which opinion is correct. The caa officially of course will say you have to follow the AIC. If you speak to the people informally they will say its a grey area which has yet to be tested.

[Keygrip]

A bit like the differences training for different types of twin. I have yet to hear of a MEP examiner to refuse to test someone in a type they haven't flown before.

Tesco - It's not only "types", it's also variants/models. I'd flown Seneca 1's, 3's and 5's. Then came time to fly a Seneca 2.

Asked the school to send me a Pilots Information Manual and company checklists (UPS, at my expense) two weeks before I arrived.

Then postponed the first test I was scheduled to do and flew with a senior instructor in the Seneca 2 before going anywhere near it as P1. It does happen (occassionally). Granted - I didn't pay for the flight - but didn't log it as command either. Also did some "area famil" before venturing out in the wild unknown.

Another "tick in a box" on the checklist of life - you've now "heard of an examiner that refused to test someone in a type they hadn't flown before".

[tescoapp]

Well done sir, thats at least one.

I still think you are in the minority.

[Keygrip]

ME? In the minority?

In more ways than one, Tesco - more ways than one.

[tescoapp]

Well your shirts are rather special in the examining circuit.

P. youre slated by some, you are put on a pedestal by others. Most of us that have met you think of you as a nice bloke that is a professional and does the old minimal fuss but maintain standards.

It doesn't suprise me you won't lower your standards and keep the checklist in life right. Your not due a slating, neither are you due being put on a pedestal.

My hat is off to a very professional aviator.

[Gbarral]

FI(R)s

I have been told (by the CAA) that the CAA expects the FI to be present on the airfield for the duration of each lesson the FI(R) gives and that he/she should attend post and preflight briefings. If this was applied fully it would probably cause a serious problem to most flying schools in this country. The logic would also entail that the supervising FI probably would have to go with the student and instructor on land-away cross-country's. A bit of a difficulty in an R22 or C152.

[Baron Von Mildred]

How about this...... I'm a CFI with around 800 instructional hours and a JAR FI(R)!
Before you all call in the CAA I'll explain.

I am currently teaching on the Ikarus C42 a VLA/microlight. You can buy one as an SEP class, but as its a permit to fly aircraft you have to do training on the microlight version. I have supervised 100's of solos, but they don't count, as they were were not on the identical VLA SEP aircraft but the microlight one. Consequently, I have also had to get a microlight QFI rating!

[Malc]

Originally Posted by Whirlybird

Excellent advice. But do you learn that from years and hours of instructing? Somehow I think that's where judgement and maturity comes in, rather than anything specifically to do with flying.
I've been saying ever since I did my FI course that the course is far too much to do with flying, and far, far too little about with dealing with people, human factors, individual differences, and similar subjects. This thread is making me even more certain that this is the case.

I think it depends on where you took the course / who with. I started at one school, and transferred for a number of reasons to another part-way through. The school I ended up at covered the whole of the above - different teaching methods/styles, how different students react to different styles of teaching...with probably as much time spent on this aspect as on the flying parts (which was in no way skimped on as a result). School no 1 only taught the content of each standard exercise, and almost totally ignored the fact that different student would react in different ways to the same delivery methods.
My advice would be to check out potential FI schools as thoroughly as you checked out (hopefully) PPL, CPL etc training organisations. You'll be spending a fair whack of cash with them - get good value for money. (You may also find that having been taught at a school with a good/bad reputation can influence whether you get a FI job later on).

[Whirlybird]

My advice would be to check out potential FI schools as thoroughly as you checked out (hopefully) PPL, CPL etc training organisations.

I agree entirely. In fact I did just this, and went to the one with probably the best reputation in the country. And the way I was taught was first-rate, on the whole. But it was lacking in just this one aspect. It's good to know that it's being taught elsewhere....even if possibly not in the rotary world.

[FormationFlyer]

Originally Posted by Sleeve Wing

Totally agree, Jinkster.
Time we went back to the old "6 months and an upgrade check."
Much more sensible (and instructor-friendly.)
Btw, nearly as daft as insisting on using an FIC X for the removal of an aerobatic limitation. How many FIC Xs do you know who are current aerobatic instructors ?? (Sorry, off thread !!)
It'll happen but not in your time, I'm afraid.
Good luck.

Well I know of 2 at least