Schools view of CRI's

[smithgd]

Hi

Anybody care to enlighten me as to your view on employing a CRI to work part time?

I'm thinking of doing the CRI course and then working part time but I'm unsure of how the schools view a CRI compared to an FI, would a CRI be of much use?

cheers
smithgd

[VFE]

On the premise that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask:

What is a CRI?

VFE.

[windriver]

General
Non pilot instructors wishing to give instruction for issue / renewal / revalidation of a SE Class or Type rating to licence holders only (no ab-initio students) on single pilot SE aeroplanes shall complete the CRI SE course. In addition, the CRI SE can conduct differences training and the 'dual flight with an instructor' as required by the SEP (land) class rating revalidation requirements.

http://www.ontrackaviation.com/cri-se.htm

[Say again s l o w l y]

CRI = Class Rating Instructor.

CRI's are not a lot of use to most schools, simply as they cannot perform the duties that make up 90% of an FI's job. Check flights etc. don't take up much of an FI's time in comparison to students and trial lessons. Neither of which a CRI can perform.

[BEagle]

Ah, but if a PPL holder with SEP Class Rating achieves the relevant microlight experience to become an AFI(Microlight), then adds a CRI(SPA):

1. He/she can be paid for microlight instruction.
2. He/she can teach licence holders (e.g. NPPL (Microlight)) the conversion training needed to add SSEA Class ratings to their licences. But cannot be paid for that without being the holder of a valid CPL.

So, if a school is teaching NPPL students on something like a Eurostar, and also has a few SEP Class aeroplanes, the Microlight FI / CRI(SPA) could indeed be very useful.

Hopefully there will be a NPPL (SSEA) Rating within the next few years..... Main objectives will be the right to teach the NPPL (SSEA) syllabus for remuneration without the need to hold a CPL or to have passed the CPL ground exams. The course envisaged will probably be very similar to the JAR/FCL FI course (including the pre-entry criteria), but the theoretical knowledge required is intended to be appropriate to light aircraft operation - so no need to know how many stewardesses are needed on a 747 or how to spot illegally moored airships....

Perhaps a way of making some money before embarking on the CPL/IR route to the airlines?

[apruneuk]

but the theoretical knowledge required is intended to be appropriate to light aircraft operation - so no need to know how many stewardesses are needed on a 747 or how to spot illegally moored airships....

Maybe if you did the CPL theory yourself, Beagle, you could actually speak with some authority. Empty vessels and all that, old chap.

A

[smithgd]

Say Again Slowly...

So what would you consider the main duties of an FI to be then?

1) Teach PPL ground school
2) Teach PPL flight exercises
3) Teach IMC/Night flight exercises
4) Trial Flights
5) SEP conversions (eg PA28 to C172)
6) Club Currency Checkouts
7) Differencies Training
8) "One hour with instructor" flight for renewal
9) PPL renewal and revalidation flights

From this list the only ones I can't do are 2,3 & 4. Also if I am doing some of the others then that frees up the FI to do the lessons, likewise with the ground school.

I know it is very much dependent on the school, guess the only way to answer my question is to talk to the local schools!

Thanks
smithgd

[S-Works]

Actually a CRI can teach both the IR the IMC if they do the IRI course. A CRI can also become an examiner. So in fact the only thing they can't do is ab initio. Looking at the average flying school these days ab initio is a smaller percentage of the business than the others on the list. Trial flight being the next and then the rest.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Ab-intio training is what an FI does most of. The fact is, is that it's easier just to have an FI who can do anything required, rather than someone who can only do certain things.

Bookings are easier and there is no space for mistakes to be made if you have FI's only.

You asked for my opinion and there it is, I don't think CRI's are of much use to schools, unless there comes a time when we have even fewer FI's about and we have to start cancelling stuff because of a shortage.

I would never have an examiner on board who hadn't been an FI before. How can you examine what you haven't been allowed to teach?

[S-Works]

Oops, to add a CRI can become an Examiner but not for a PPL flight test. As you say how can you test something you have never taught.

I know of a lot of clubs who are going towards the CRI as they can have PPL Instructors for doing the tailwheel and club checkouts, etc and FI's dedicated to Ab initio training. A CRI who does nothing but fly tailwheel cubs for example can often make a much better tail wheel instructor than an FI who just spends his life in a 152. The student gains out of having someone who excels in one particular area rather than being a jack of all trades.

If a school can't manage its bookings to get the right Instructor for the job its a poor show. I assume on that basis that all of the Instructors also have to be examiners to make sure there are no mistakes when a test is needed......

[smithgd]

Given that I was thinking of only using this to work weekends I thought it could be better value for money (given i'm now skint thanks to MEIR ratings) than the FI.

I knew about the IRI I just ignored it cos it's along way off hours wise, the other option once I have the hours would be to do ME training via the CRI(ME).

smithgd

[S-Works]

The CRI rating is a very powerfull tool that has been under utilised. I have had considerable involvement with it as part of the AOPA mentoring scheme we have proposed.

JAA created the rating to allow teaching of the non abinitio skills, checkouts etc but the uptake has been low due to the number of hours builkders taking up the FI route.

When we researched the hours flown in the average school as I pointed out in an earlier post the ab initio was surprisingly a lower number than than the routine, checkouts, licence renewals etc. Obvious really when you consider flight training had been in decline for years. The CRI is a natural building block for continuing education. ME training has to be done by a CRI(ME) as does IR training. IMC can be done by both FI and CRI. Allthough I would personally prefer it to be done by an IRI as the standard of IMC training is often very poor.

I think the future holds schools without hours builders staffed by full time career Instructors supported by part time CRI's some with CPL some with PPL.

[VFE]

Devils advocate hat on again here Bose-X..... but if you're so worried about the state of education in general aviation, and if I understand you correctly, money is not of paramount importance to you - why don't you do an FI rating and become a qualified FI? Seems to me that your well thought out approach to the ills of this game would stand on much more solid ground should you be working more from the inside rather than as a close observer? Hate to say it but as a CRI it sounds as though you really are restricted to what you can achieve in terms of continuation of quality instruction.

VFE.

[RVR800]

What is required is for an examination that is relevant; not to scrap the requirement for an exam; that applies to PPL CPL and ATPL exams all of which are locked in the past to some extent e.g. Slide rules aren't used much in any "profession" these days....

Some chaps haven't done a proper hard exam and are out of their depth for anything other than local general handling. If you want a hobby type job I guess it will reduce costs though - I know that many just want to reduce costs...

Its all vested interest this game (not so hidden agendas)

[VFE]

Hmmm.... my thoughts are that Bose-X may have a vested interest!

VFE.

[S-Works]

VFE to be honest that is the sort of narrow response I am coming to expect from you.

I have no vested interest as you point out I neither need the money nor the hours.......... I assure you I can hold my ground when it comes to a log book/licence pissing contest.....

What I do want to see is the furtherment of GA not watch it fade into oblivion through a lack of change. By not fostering change our rights will eventually erode to the point where we will be grounded. Fine for you chaps who want to fly a people tube but not for GA. The regulatory system has been geared towards the CAT world and each forced change is a nail in the coffin for GA.

You may not like my views about hours builders etc. and reading your responses I suspect that is exactly what you are hence hitting a raw nerve? But PPL training is in decline, private ownership is in decline. Those still flying are trying to save money left right and centre and so will not invest in expensive continuation training with school based FI's. Opening up more avenues to access further training can only enhance flight safety. Have continuity in our Instructors can only enhance flight safety.

I am changing things from the inside, or at least trying to. But while people like you stick there heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that change needs to happen we continue to the slippery slide.

So how about posting something constructive rather than trying to get into a pissing contest with me little boy?

[ariel]

VFE

Is it just my imagination, or are you always out to bait boxe-x?

Personally, I think bose-x has a valid and interesting point of view.

[VFE]

So do I Ariel.

It is just that I think he'd have better clout if he were to put his money where his mouth is (so to speak) and become a QFI. I think it a fantastic idea to have more experienced fliers teaching but it's one thing to know about something but another entirely to be able to teach it. If he were a QFI working full time he'd be doing more productive front line things against the bad situation we all detest so much, rather than pontificating from the relative safety of the CRI corner.

Bose-X I don't doubt you've done 10 times more flying than me so there is no need for pissing contests here but if you want to change something then you're never going to be taken seriously by being an armchair pundit. That's just my gut feeling on the matter and if that's seen as baiting then so be it but it is actually born from the same desire to see things improve as yourself so effectively we're all on the same page are we not?

VFE.

[S-Works]

Not sure how you see me as being an armchair pundit. I work with the AOPA MWG the CAA on the IR WG, AOPA USA. I teach and I fly, hardly an armchair pastime.

In fact working as a full time FI would do squat all to change things, being able to express a view without fear of upsetting the apple cart with an employer or future airline gives me a lot more power to change things.

Your real issue with me is that I hit a raw nerve by telling the truth and you have to strike back. Am I the only one that thinks that does not make for a stable candidate for an airliner..........

Perhaps the fact that I actually do things with my flying is what grates on you? How many airways trips have you done in the last month, how many times have you left the country and actually gone somewhere in the last month? Care to swap armchair numbers?

GA flying should be about expanding the envelope and enjoying the freedom of the skies....

[VFE]

GA flying should be about expanding the envelope and enjoying the freedom of the skies....

Again, I totally agree. Perhaps you need to water down your stereotypical impression of flying instructors under the age of 50? Seems to me that you cannot get past the idea that the odd young & naive FI might look down their nose at someone with a broad GA background like your good self. I can assure you that I afford every pilot I meet the same amount of respect regardless of experience and certainly would never think myself above the mark simply because I have a few bits of paper more than the next man let alone someone with more flying hours.

And what has airway flying got to do with this discussion? Really!!

VFE.