CRI Confusion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: channel islands
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRI Confusion
I am afraid I may be asking a stupid question (or two) - but I am trying to work out exactly what the difference between FI and CRI are. From LASORS I seem to understand that FI is for the issue of a licence from scratch and a CRI is good for Class rating issue for existing licence holders. Yet a CRI does not need an FI rating???!
What I don't undertsand is why being an FI does not automatically confer the CRI 'ticket'. [given teaching for the SEP class that goes with the PPL]The reason I'm asking for help is that in researching jobs I see that 'FI(A) with CRI' is often being stipulated.
Next stupid question - does the removal of No Applied Instrument instruction restriction confer the 'title' of FI with IRI? - on the assumption that the FI is only teaching for IMC rating and does not himself hold an IR. Or is there a different 'label' From LASORS - it seems that such an instructor can teach for the IR without holding an IR (given 200+ hours of IFR flight time) Am I right in guessing that ads requiring FI(A) IRI are looking for IR qualified instructors not just IMC level instruction??
Can anyone help me with my confusion? Thanks!
What I don't undertsand is why being an FI does not automatically confer the CRI 'ticket'. [given teaching for the SEP class that goes with the PPL]The reason I'm asking for help is that in researching jobs I see that 'FI(A) with CRI' is often being stipulated.
Next stupid question - does the removal of No Applied Instrument instruction restriction confer the 'title' of FI with IRI? - on the assumption that the FI is only teaching for IMC rating and does not himself hold an IR. Or is there a different 'label' From LASORS - it seems that such an instructor can teach for the IR without holding an IR (given 200+ hours of IFR flight time) Am I right in guessing that ads requiring FI(A) IRI are looking for IR qualified instructors not just IMC level instruction??
Can anyone help me with my confusion? Thanks!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An FI has the right to teach for PPL issue and Class/Type Rating issue, as mentioned in JAR-FCL 1.330 (a). The job advert is misleading if it mentions "FI with CRI", unless it is refereing to the fact you must be an unrestricted FI holder as opposed to an FI(R).
An instructor (FI, CRI, TRI, IRI, SRI, MCCI, STI) can only teach something he holds, so without an IR they would be limited to IMC only.
Hope that helps
smithgd
An instructor (FI, CRI, TRI, IRI, SRI, MCCI, STI) can only teach something he holds, so without an IR they would be limited to IMC only.
Hope that helps
smithgd
The privileges of the CRI(SE) are encompassed within the FI qualification. Occasionally the term CRI is used seperately in the context of being a ME CRI however; that is also encompassed in a FI (ME) qualification.
Under JAR-FCL the IRI qualification is exactly the same as the "removal of the no applied IF limitation" which is a hangover from UK National ratings. With the no applied IF restriction removed, you can subject to holding an IR and being standardised at an approved FTO, teach for an IR or subject to holding an IMC rating teach for that. If an approved FTO is looking for "IRIs" their only purpose would be to teach for an IR so it is probable that that is what they are looking for.
The CRI and IRI are actually stand alone qualifications.
Under JAR-FCL the IRI qualification is exactly the same as the "removal of the no applied IF limitation" which is a hangover from UK National ratings. With the no applied IF restriction removed, you can subject to holding an IR and being standardised at an approved FTO, teach for an IR or subject to holding an IMC rating teach for that. If an approved FTO is looking for "IRIs" their only purpose would be to teach for an IR so it is probable that that is what they are looking for.
The CRI and IRI are actually stand alone qualifications.
