FI(A) issue requirements
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who are the "we" you are referring to?
If an organisation provides training for the Instructor Rating and the requirements for starting the course are x then provided that the candidate meets the minimum requirements you are not permitted to block their attempts to complete the course by adding higher personal requirements.
I have my own opinion about that.
So, my question was directed at those who feel the minimum is not enough - how do they apply their 'higher' standards?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. The other thing that needs addressing (in the UK) is the 25 supervised solos. I've seen all sorts of shenanigans here. At very best, you get FI(R)s who are bunged a few insignificant solos without them actually making a go/no go decision. At very worst I've seen excessive use of the parker pen routine where 'mates' have looked after each other trading in student solos. Regardless, I have rarely seen any mentoring of FI(R)s by supervisory instructors. If the 200hr (78 P1), new out of the box chap is to develop, he/she needs to be managed by someone who cares rather more than rattling off a shed load of Exercise 3s.
Where I work I don't see anyone applying 'higher' standards; I see a sausage machine that works to the bottom line.
Where I work I don't see anyone applying 'higher' standards; I see a sausage machine that works to the bottom line.
If an organisation provides training for the Instructor Rating and the requirements for starting the course are x then provided that the candidate meets the minimum requirements you are not permitted to block their attempts to complete the course by adding higher personal requirements.
Mind you, I won't get much business because the bloke down the road will take on anyone with the minimum requirements and knows a friendly FIE with a 100% pass rate. He also has an 'in' with the Club that Cows is talking about so he can get his proteges unrestricted in no time. And it all gets worse in the brave new world of EASA.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ireland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you think it will get worse BillieBob? Do you think the rules will change? More regulation? If everything else that E@rsole has done so far then I suppose that this will be the case.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pre-entry requirements to my FI course are precisely what I decide they are going to be.
JAR-FCL 1.335 specifies the requirements to be met before starting the course.
While you are entitled to turn away business, you are not entitled to say that Mr X fails to meet the requirements to start the course when those are not the requirements laid down.
It is entirely possible that Mr X can ask you (as a person so qualified) to complete the pre-entry flight test while having the intention of completing the course at another organisation - perhaps in another country.
Since this is the only element of the entry requirements that you have any involvement with, are you going to unfairly fail Mr X because they don't meet your personal higher standards?
Seems to me that you have missed the whole problem.
The problem is not Mr Y - integrated CPL - who has the skill and knowledge to pass all the requirements in minimum hours - starting an FI course because there is a good probability that Mr Y will pass the course.
The problem is that Mr Y or anyone else who has passed the course is not finished training as an FI and needs further training especially before they are unrestricted.
The day after becoming un-restricted an FI can set up their own RTF and start providing trainig to the general public. Perhaps if more Supervising FI's remembered that then they would not be so free with recomendations to have the restriction removed.
Remember that having the required hours and the required supervised solos does not automatically qualify them for having the restricftion removed.
As for;
but the industry can do what it likes
Perhaps I could compare you to a driving instructor trying to reduce traffic congestion by refusing to put forward capable drivers to take their test!!
DFC - You clearly do not understand the relationship between JAR-FCL, the Authority and the industry. Having been directly involved in gaining various FTO and TRTO approvals over the last 15 years or so, I do.
....and in each case the specific experience requirement is prefaced by the words 'at least'.
JAR-FCL lays down the agreed minimum requirements for approval of a course or for the issue of a licence or rating. The Authority, which itself cannot set any higher minimum requirements than those agreed by the JAA, is charged with examining any submission for course approval and ensuring that it meets all of the minimum requirements. If an FTO or TRTO submits a course whose pre-entry requirements meet or exceed the laid down minima and is in all other respects compliant with the requirements, the Authority has no choice but to approve that course. Consequently, if I submit an FI course for approval that includes all of the pre-entry requirements laid down in JAR-FCL and, in addition, requires the applicant to have a minimum of 200 hours experience post licence issue, it will be approved.
For example, a few years ago I was involved in the preparation of a submission for a SP turbojet type rating course on behalf of a well known TRTO whose management did not wish to take on any student who did not hold at least a CPL with at least 500 hours flight experience. These requirements, both well in excess of the JAA minima, were accepted without question by the UK CAA and the course was approved.
Similarly, the design of the course is up to me, provided that it meets the minimum requirements of JAR-FCL. In the case of the FI(A) course, AMC FCL 1.340 offers some guidance on the construct of the course and its content but how that is arranged into a practical curriculum is up to me to decide and to declare in the relevant Training Manual. Provided that the resulting course covers all of the syllabus items and comprises a minimum of 125 hours ground and 30 hours flight training, it will be approved.
That being the case, your insulting, and somewhat childish comments regarding the pre-entry flight test and comparison with a driving instructor are as irrelevant as they are ill-informed.
timtucker - EASA's stated intention is to de-restrict the market to a ridiculous degree. Under current plans, it will be possible for a candidate to select an examiner, for any flight test, from anywhere in Europe. The result will, of course, be that any examiner who sets other than the lowest standards, will find himself out of business as everyone flocks to the 'easiest' touch.
JAR-FCL 1.335 specifies the requirements to be met before starting the course.....
JAR-FCL lays down the agreed minimum requirements for approval of a course or for the issue of a licence or rating. The Authority, which itself cannot set any higher minimum requirements than those agreed by the JAA, is charged with examining any submission for course approval and ensuring that it meets all of the minimum requirements. If an FTO or TRTO submits a course whose pre-entry requirements meet or exceed the laid down minima and is in all other respects compliant with the requirements, the Authority has no choice but to approve that course. Consequently, if I submit an FI course for approval that includes all of the pre-entry requirements laid down in JAR-FCL and, in addition, requires the applicant to have a minimum of 200 hours experience post licence issue, it will be approved.
For example, a few years ago I was involved in the preparation of a submission for a SP turbojet type rating course on behalf of a well known TRTO whose management did not wish to take on any student who did not hold at least a CPL with at least 500 hours flight experience. These requirements, both well in excess of the JAA minima, were accepted without question by the UK CAA and the course was approved.
Similarly, the design of the course is up to me, provided that it meets the minimum requirements of JAR-FCL. In the case of the FI(A) course, AMC FCL 1.340 offers some guidance on the construct of the course and its content but how that is arranged into a practical curriculum is up to me to decide and to declare in the relevant Training Manual. Provided that the resulting course covers all of the syllabus items and comprises a minimum of 125 hours ground and 30 hours flight training, it will be approved.
That being the case, your insulting, and somewhat childish comments regarding the pre-entry flight test and comparison with a driving instructor are as irrelevant as they are ill-informed.
timtucker - EASA's stated intention is to de-restrict the market to a ridiculous degree. Under current plans, it will be possible for a candidate to select an examiner, for any flight test, from anywhere in Europe. The result will, of course, be that any examiner who sets other than the lowest standards, will find himself out of business as everyone flocks to the 'easiest' touch.
