Instructors exercising IR/IMCr privileges
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's fine. It's in the context of "All you fellow group members get a move on and get your IMC ratings while you can. This is what happens if you end up in a tight spot without one".
Whopity, the EASA definition of 'aerobatic flight' has now been amended after the Kölunatics had the problems of their original definiton pointed out to them!
The latest definition is:
As usual it has been drafted in tortuous €urospeak, with far too many commas. But at least it means that Instructors won't need Aerobatic Ratings to teach stalling, spinning (e.g. for FI candidates), IF UPs, steep turns etc.
As for a pilot being 'legally entitled' to teach IF without holding any qualifications, the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture.
The latest definition is:
“...an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight or for instruction for licences or ratings other than the aerobatic rating.”
As for a pilot being 'legally entitled' to teach IF without holding any qualifications, the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture.
the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture.
A CPL course includes 10 hours IF but the instructor doesn't have to be an IRI!
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the unqualified being taught by the equally unqualified will simply mean that acquired bad habits will have to be eradicated by a proper instructor at some future juncture.
But to teach the Basic Instrument Flight Module, which attracts the same credit towards the IR, he does. Where's the logic in that?
It's in the context of "All you fellow group members get a move on and get your IMC ratings while you can.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EGCC, EGGP, Relocatable to all UK
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An IMC rating involves applied instrument flying which you as a CRI are not qualified to give. A FI Course involves teaching IF but not Applied IF. A FI may teach the basic exercises of the IMC course but only a FI without the applied IF limitation, or an IRI can teach the approaches. A CRI can teach nothing towards this rating.
would the caa not have a fit if this was done in practise ?
ie some one sending off their logged IMC hrs with a non IF instructor doing part of the course.
i'm sure i've read it in a doc that you cant teach IF for the purpose of gaining a rating ie IMC without having the IF restriction removed but can teach the Instrument work as part of the PPL.
would the caa not have a fit if this was done in practise
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Up North
Age: 57
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would the caa not have a fit if this was done in practise ? ie some one sending off their logged IMC hrs with a non IF instructor doing part of the course.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This gets more and more laughable; There are so many rules and so many holes that the legislation is becoming unworkable; what we need is to revert back to what we had previously..
Nobody voted for these changes; no one is asking for them now; no one wants the costs associated with them; there is no safety issues with current legislation;
The central problem is that we have too many regulators who feel the need to create more and more regulations and there is no political check on this only a massive deficit..
Nobody voted for these changes; no one is asking for them now; no one wants the costs associated with them; there is no safety issues with current legislation;
The central problem is that we have too many regulators who feel the need to create more and more regulations and there is no political check on this only a massive deficit..
And two letters I have seen from Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP reveal that she fully backs the proposals and justifies the additional costs by claiming pilots will have additional privileges with their EASA licence. Another out of touch MP.
This gets more and more laughable; There are so many rules and so many holes that the legislation is becoming unworkable; what we need is to revert back to what we had previously..
Nobody voted for these changes; no one is asking for them now; no one wants the costs associated with them; there is no safety issues with current legislation;
The central problem is that we have too many regulators who feel the need to create more and more regulations and there is no political check on this only a massive deficit..
Nobody voted for these changes; no one is asking for them now; no one wants the costs associated with them; there is no safety issues with current legislation;
The central problem is that we have too many regulators who feel the need to create more and more regulations and there is no political check on this only a massive deficit..
EASA is only an assistant rule maker. They have shuffled rules from a variety of sources, largely unchecked, those who have acted on the NPAs are largely unqualified to do so, and there is no safety input or understanding within the system. The political clowns above them have a naive belief that common regulation will lead to a common level of safety; it will, based on the lowest common denominator, then what? Who will take note of AAIB recommendations in the future, the CAA will be powerless?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Further to discussion above about FIs doing the IMC course, I just found the following in LASORS E3.1:
"Instruction on the course may only be given by an IRI or a FI who is qualified to teach applied instrument flying"
Anyone know if this has slipped in or is based on something concrete? I was thinking like some of the above posters that a FI without the restriction removed could have done the initial full/partial panel teach.
"Instruction on the course may only be given by an IRI or a FI who is qualified to teach applied instrument flying"
Anyone know if this has slipped in or is based on something concrete? I was thinking like some of the above posters that a FI without the restriction removed could have done the initial full/partial panel teach.
