Instructors exercising IR/IMCr privileges

[mrmum]

From Trainingcom:
AEROBATICS ON TRAINING FLIGHTS
We would like to remind you that the inclusion of any aerobatic manoeuvres during training flights constitutes aerobatic instruction, whether these manoeuvres are part of the training syllabus and the intended lesson or not. An Instructor is exercising the privileges of his/her FI rating throughout a dual flight (including a trial lesson) and to carry out or demonstrate any aerobatic manoeuvre, therefore, requires that the Instructor's FI rating is not restricted for the purposes of giving aerobatic instruction.

This got me thinking about whether this would also apply to the scenario where an instructor themselves had a valid IR or IMCr, but had a "no applied instrument" restriction on their FI rating. What if there was a layer of cloud between say 1000' and 2000' and they climbed above it to carry out a lesson in VMC "on-top" then carried out an IAP to get back to the airfield. If you follow the principle from trainingcom, then they are still exercising their FI rating during the IAP thus they would need to be entitled to teach the IR or IMCr to do this legally, wouldn't they?

[Whopity]

A FI is entitled to give Instrument instruction on both the PPL and CPL courses without having the "No Applied Instrument" limitation removed from the rating. Remember, this is not a JAA limitation but an outdated UK limitation that wasn't removed due to "software" limitations in 1999. Put simply, you don't need to have completed the IRI course to exercise that privilege. To fly through cloud you do need an IR, an IMC rating or hold a UK professional licence with inclusive privileges.

Whilst there is no clear definition of "Applied IF" it is considered to mean teaching Instrument Approaches not basic IF.

With regard to legality, the FI is perfectly legal doing what you describe. Teaching aerobatics is a slightly different situation, when the licence actually contains a limitation prohibiting such instruction. However; as you may have seen in previous threads you only need a rating to teach for a rating and there isn't one for aeros yet. Trainingcom is really trying to say, if you teach aerobatics make sure you are qualified to do so.

One interesting anomaly is that to teach IF at night, a FI must also hold a night instructional qualification whereas, a stand alone IRI is not restricted to teaching IF by day!

[BillieBob]

One interesting anomaly is that to teach IF at night, a FI must also hold a night instructional qualification

And, unless the UK changes the rules, from 8 April 2012 he will need an IR as well.

[mrmum]

BillieBob
Is the "rule changing" you refer to the UK requirement to fly in accordance with IFR at night? So with EASA requiring an IR to fly IFR, by implication you will need an IR to instruct for the NQ. Could a FI then not still teach the NQ in a CTR, SVFR? Admittedly the the 1 hour cross-country might present a problem, you could always do a very slow lap of the perimeter of the CTR

[BEagle]

Actually, it's more that the cretinous Kölunatics need to include in their €urorules the same flexible provisions as exist under JAR-FCL 1.175(b):

In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances (e.g. at night), the holder of a pilot licence may fly under IFR, provided that pilot holds a qualification appropriate to the circumstances, airspace and flight conditions in which the flight is conducted. National qualifications permitting pilots to fly in accordance with IFR other than in VMC without being the holder of a valid IR(A) shall be restricted to use of the airspace of the State of licence issue only.

It really isn't that hard to include this, is it? If so, then why so??

[Whopity]

In JAA Member States where national legislation requires flight in accordance with IFR under specified circumstances

SERA Chapter 4 - Visual Flight Rules

4.3 When so prescribed by the competent authority, VFR flights at night may be permitted under the following conditions:

[BillieBob]

SERA is not the problem as it retains a degree of flexibility. The inflexible legislation is, as usual, in the ineptly drafted Part-FCL, which states that a pilot may not fly under IFR unless he/she holds an instrument rating. Consequently, from 8 April 2012, the night qualification becomes useless in the UK (except when flying under SVFR) unless the pilot also holds a valid IR. I have as yet discovered no indication that the UK has even considered the implications of this particular piece of €urostupidity.

[BEagle]

BillieBob, when I asked the CAA person responsible, his reply was "Dunno"....

However, they have now woken up to this.....

But the whole problem is, as has been said, entirely due to inept €urocratic bungling.

[Duchess_Driver]

From Trainingcom:
AEROBATICS ON TRAINING FLIGHTS
We would like to remind you that the inclusion of any aerobatic manoeuvres during training flights constitutes aerobatic instruction, whether these manoeuvres are part of the training syllabus and the intended lesson or not. An Instructor is exercising the privileges of his/her FI rating throughout a dual flight (including a trial lesson) and to carry out or demonstrate any aerobatic manoeuvre, therefore, requires that the Instructor's FI rating is not restricted for the purposes of giving aerobatic instruction.

Teaching spinning on an FI course?

[BillieBob]

Teaching spinning on an FI course?

Your point being?

However, they have now woken up to this

Waking up and getting out of bed are two entirely different things.

[Duchess_Driver]

My point being that teaching on the FI course includes teaching a FI candidate to enter a spin and to teach the subsequent recovery... Am I not therefore teaching an aerobatic sequence even though my FI ticket still clearly states "No Aerbatic Instruction"

[Whopity]

It used to say "No aerobatics except spinning" but some bright spark has changed it to "No Aerobatics"

[mrmum]

So, does that mean that if the type I instruct on can be used for spinning and I choose to do so with students, but my FI rating has the CAA's "No aerobatics" restriction on it, then that is now (and may have been for a while) illegal?

[mrmum]

Having just had a look at my licence, it appears that the last time it passed through Gatwick for a very expensive reprint, they omitted to put the no aeros restriction it! It definitely used to be there, but I've never done the course nor applied to have the restriction removed, but never mind, I'm all legal it would seem.

[Whopity]

That could be:
a) another mistake
b) they have finally aligned with JAR-FCL and removed an old UK restriction that doesn't exist in JARs

[Stan Evil]

mrmum

Spinning is not aerobatics and so all FIs can teach spinning if they wish. The same applies to aeroplanes, quite a few are cleared for spinning but not for aerobatics.

[Whopity]

Spinning is not aerobatics

According to the ANO Art 255 it is:

'Aerobatic manoeuvres' includes loops, spins, rolls, bunts, stall turns, inverted flying and any other similar manoeuvre;

EASA Definition

For the purposes of this Part, the following definitions apply:

'Aerobatic flight’ means an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

[FlyingStone]

Well, in "normal flight" you usually don't have the need to exceed 30° of bank. According to this EASA's definition, you will require an aerobatic rating to teach steep turns during PPL (sometimes up to 60 deegres of bank) or for teaching recovery from unusual attitudes. I really wonder how's that going to work...

[Shunter]

A FI is entitled to give Instrument instruction on both the PPL and CPL courses without having the "No Applied Instrument" limitation removed from the rating. Remember, this is not a JAA limitation but an outdated UK limitation that wasn't removed due to "software" limitations in 1999. Put simply, you don't need to have completed the IRI course to exercise that privilege. To fly through cloud you do need an IR, an IMC rating or hold a UK professional licence with inclusive privileges.

That's interesting. So would I as a CPL/CRI be legal in doing the same? If I were to fly with a vanilla PPL holder and we did some basic under-the-hood handling work (or flew in IMC enroute) would they be able to log PUT instrument time?

[BillieBob]

If I were to fly with a vanilla PPL holder and we did some basic under-the-hood handling work (or flew in IMC enroute) would they be able to log PUT instrument time?

You are legally entitled to give the instruction (as is any pilot) and the PPL holder is entitled to record time spent flying by sole reference to instruments in their logbook, which is nothing more than a personal record. However, the instruction cannot be counted towards the requirements for the issue of an instrument rating as you are not qualified in accordance with JAR-FCL 1.330(d)