CRI privileges (again): training under IR
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nick14
Nope, I don't believe so! He's not qualified to exercise any instructional privileges on the ME aeroplane therefore he can't. However ...
In FCL.900(a)(1)(ii) above, you may choose to interpret the phrase "instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given" as meaning that teaching the operation of an EFIS system on a single engine aeroplane is appropriate to teaching how to operate it in an ME aeroplane. Even I think that a bit of a stretch but I'm sure a good lawyer could get you off if you were hauled up for it.
Again, all this ilustrates that the rules do not cover every possible situation, I'll repeat what I already said ...
3 Point
then a CRI who holds an MEP/IR can presumably teach EFIS on a twin with a CRI/SE.
FCL.900 Instructor certificates
(a) General. A person shall only carry out:
(1) flight instruction in aircraft when he/she holds:
(i) a pilot licence issued or accepted in accordance with this Regulation;
(ii) an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given, issued in
accordance with this Subpart;
(a) General. A person shall only carry out:
(1) flight instruction in aircraft when he/she holds:
(i) a pilot licence issued or accepted in accordance with this Regulation;
(ii) an instructor certificate appropriate to the instruction given, issued in
accordance with this Subpart;
Again, all this ilustrates that the rules do not cover every possible situation, I'll repeat what I already said ...
Don't look to the rules for a precise answer to every situation. Take them as limitations, don't read into them things which are not there but apply your knowledge, experience and intelligence to make good decisions.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont understand why a CRI would need to teach anything under IFR?
All of the stuff they can teach is VFR only. Calling yourself IFR in VFR conditions is pointless and its only the UK that has the concept of IFR OCAS anyway.
If you are in IFR airspace and not training for IFR skills then I have to ask why any responsible Instructor would be trying to teach VFR skills in IFR?
All of the stuff they can teach is VFR only. Calling yourself IFR in VFR conditions is pointless and its only the UK that has the concept of IFR OCAS anyway.
If you are in IFR airspace and not training for IFR skills then I have to ask why any responsible Instructor would be trying to teach VFR skills in IFR?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Bose ...
How about because the only clear weather is in an area of airspace where flight under IFR is the best choice. How about my scenario of operating less than 1,000' below the cloudbase?
BTW, what's "IFR airspace"?? As I understand it IFR is a set of flight rules which a pilot can choose to operate under, he may make this choice while flying in any class of airspace he likes.
As instructor I believe it is incumbent upon us to be precise in our use of the technical language associated with aviation and not, for example to say IFR" when we mean "IMC", not to say "sideslip" when we mean "drift", not to say "bank" when we mean "roll", not to say "power" when we mean "thrust" etc etc. It's confusing enough without the experts muddying the waters still further.
3 Point
If you are in IFR airspace and not training for IFR skills then I have to ask why any responsible Instructor would be trying to teach VFR skills in IFR?
BTW, what's "IFR airspace"?? As I understand it IFR is a set of flight rules which a pilot can choose to operate under, he may make this choice while flying in any class of airspace he likes.
As instructor I believe it is incumbent upon us to be precise in our use of the technical language associated with aviation and not, for example to say IFR" when we mean "IMC", not to say "sideslip" when we mean "drift", not to say "bank" when we mean "roll", not to say "power" when we mean "thrust" etc etc. It's confusing enough without the experts muddying the waters still further.
3 Point
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I really can't see what you are suggesting other than some personal reason for booking IFR time....
I have never taught VFR skills under IFR in over 2,000hrs of teaching and testing. The training side of our operation in Spain operates in CAS and we do not file IFR flight plans for VFR training. Our ops manual clear states that where conditions require compliance with IFR then training is not permitted for VFR courses. I also do not accept time logged on VFR courses as IFR towards the Instrument Instruction pre requisites....
We have very clearly stated VFR minima and its not permitted to circumvent them by filing IFR.
I also fully understand the need to differentiate between flight under IFR and and flight in IMC and don't seem to recall talking about flight in IMC.
I have never taught VFR skills under IFR in over 2,000hrs of teaching and testing. The training side of our operation in Spain operates in CAS and we do not file IFR flight plans for VFR training. Our ops manual clear states that where conditions require compliance with IFR then training is not permitted for VFR courses. I also do not accept time logged on VFR courses as IFR towards the Instrument Instruction pre requisites....
We have very clearly stated VFR minima and its not permitted to circumvent them by filing IFR.
I also fully understand the need to differentiate between flight under IFR and and flight in IMC and don't seem to recall talking about flight in IMC.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To do the stalling exercises under VFR with a recovery by 3,000 ft AGL would require a minimum cloud base of around 4,500 ft. Such days are rare in the UK.
On a good flying day with a cloud base at say 3,500 ft I have the choice of doing them lower or getting closer to the cloud than VFR allows and starting at say 3,300 ft. Personally, I prefer the higher option and so I must do them under IFR to remain legal.
The only motive for me doing this is to complete the exercise as safely as I can. I don't log any of the time as IFR. I don't see any problem with this.
Of course, if we all worked in sunny Spain......
On a good flying day with a cloud base at say 3,500 ft I have the choice of doing them lower or getting closer to the cloud than VFR allows and starting at say 3,300 ft. Personally, I prefer the higher option and so I must do them under IFR to remain legal.
The only motive for me doing this is to complete the exercise as safely as I can. I don't log any of the time as IFR. I don't see any problem with this.
Of course, if we all worked in sunny Spain......
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFR is clear of cloud and in sight of the surface for pretty much all of the UK airspace that we train in.
4500ft for stalling? You are pulling my leg?
Filing an IFR flight plan or are just calling yourself IFR in order to meet some notion that you think you need to be IFR?
4500ft for stalling? You are pulling my leg?
Filing an IFR flight plan or are just calling yourself IFR in order to meet some notion that you think you need to be IFR?
There are types you might wish to be at 4,500 or rather higher for stalling, but to be fair, none of them I fly normally. If Dobbin needs 1500ft to recover from a stall in an SEP, then he might want to reconsider how he's teaching it, and 3000agl for recovery is a bit on the high side for most common training types isn't it?
A classic a few months ago, which I'm sure was quite legal. As a CRI I was teaching an exercise on measurement of climb and glide performance for a specialist course (before anybody asks, not on any PPL syllabus, and this all went up as far as EASA HQ and they approved it, also done within an ATO with the full approval of the Head of Training), to an aeronautical engineer who held a PPL. Cloudbase was about 1000ft, cloud tops about 3,000ft.
Took off, climbed into cloud, did the entire exercise between cloud tops and 8,000ft or so. Then took an approach back into base.
Within my licences and privileges. All logged as instruction. safe, chunks of it logged as IFR. But, of-course, I was not teaching any aspect of IF - I'm not qualified to, and he didn't need me to.
G
A classic a few months ago, which I'm sure was quite legal. As a CRI I was teaching an exercise on measurement of climb and glide performance for a specialist course (before anybody asks, not on any PPL syllabus, and this all went up as far as EASA HQ and they approved it, also done within an ATO with the full approval of the Head of Training), to an aeronautical engineer who held a PPL. Cloudbase was about 1000ft, cloud tops about 3,000ft.
Took off, climbed into cloud, did the entire exercise between cloud tops and 8,000ft or so. Then took an approach back into base.
Within my licences and privileges. All logged as instruction. safe, chunks of it logged as IFR. But, of-course, I was not teaching any aspect of IF - I'm not qualified to, and he didn't need me to.
G
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our ops manual is recovery by 2,000ft and I have no problem doing stalling in a regular trainer at 2,500ft.
Like I said, we don't permit VFR exercises to be trained in conditions that require compliance with IFR.
Like I said, we don't permit VFR exercises to be trained in conditions that require compliance with IFR.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GtE,
A perfect example of intelligent decision making to get the job done while remaining entirely within the constraints of the regulations.
Bose, I have operated in and out of airports located within airspace which required the filing of IFR flight plans when coming and gong yet we were training basic visual flying exercises. Wasn't breaking any rules to do so.
As GtE has said (and Dobbin has hinted) some aeroplanes and some instructors may wish to be higher than 3,000 to safely carry out stall training. Also, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface only applies up to 3,000'; above that you need 1,000' vertically clear of cloud or you are no longer VMC!
dobbin said
He's quite right! 3,000'AGL would be 3,500' altitude in many parts of the UK (or even much higher) so to remain 1,000' vertically clear of cloud (required for VMC) you'd need a cloud-base of 4,500'!
As GtE said, there are types for which I would want to be considerably higher than 3,000' AGL before stalling.
We all need to use our intelligence to make sensible decisions to operate safely and efficiently while remaining within the rules. Simple!
3 Point
A perfect example of intelligent decision making to get the job done while remaining entirely within the constraints of the regulations.
Bose, I have operated in and out of airports located within airspace which required the filing of IFR flight plans when coming and gong yet we were training basic visual flying exercises. Wasn't breaking any rules to do so.
As GtE has said (and Dobbin has hinted) some aeroplanes and some instructors may wish to be higher than 3,000 to safely carry out stall training. Also, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface only applies up to 3,000'; above that you need 1,000' vertically clear of cloud or you are no longer VMC!
4500ft for stalling? You are pulling my leg?
dobbin said
To do the stalling exercises under VFR with a recovery by 3,000 ft AGL would require a minimum cloud base of around 4,500 ft.
As GtE said, there are types for which I would want to be considerably higher than 3,000' AGL before stalling.
We all need to use our intelligence to make sensible decisions to operate safely and efficiently while remaining within the rules. Simple!
3 Point
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, just to add.
Bose, I understand that your Ops manual imposes various constraints and of course you operate within those limits. Other people however may not be constrained by such Ops manual limitations and so can operate with greater freedom; doesn't make it wrong!
I agree, I have no problem stalling in a standard trainer at 2,500'agl but in some parts of the UK that would put you above 3,000' requiring >1'000 vertical cloud separation to remain VMC. Also, not all aeroplanes are "standard trainers"! There are some types I fly in which I would not consider entering a stall at that height.
3 Point
Bose, I understand that your Ops manual imposes various constraints and of course you operate within those limits. Other people however may not be constrained by such Ops manual limitations and so can operate with greater freedom; doesn't make it wrong!
I agree, I have no problem stalling in a standard trainer at 2,500'agl but in some parts of the UK that would put you above 3,000' requiring >1'000 vertical cloud separation to remain VMC. Also, not all aeroplanes are "standard trainers"! There are some types I fly in which I would not consider entering a stall at that height.
3 Point
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4500ft for stalling? You are pulling my leg?
I am quite happy to do stalls down to the 2,000 agl limit in our flying orders, but the additional height is worth having in some circumstances. A 1 turn spin in the T67m I sometimes use will burn 1,100 ft, so if there is any possibility of a spin I would prefer to be a bit higher.
If I can only achieve that additional height by switching to IFR, why wouldn't I? What is the problem?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bose-x
its only the UK that has the concept of IFR OCAS anyway.
You may legally fly IFR OCAS in the UK, Belgium, France, and certainly in other countries.
Last edited by 172510; 4th Feb 2015 at 18:10. Reason: Spelling, grammar etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my CPL training, my instructor had me fly in clouds (the time in clouds being part of the 10 hours I had to fly without external references.)
Was it bad practice to your opinion?
I don't know whether he had undertaken the IRI training or not, but assuming he had not, would have it been illegal?
I think that Flying without external reference is also part of the PPL syllabus. Would you undertake that part of the training in real clouds without being an IRI? Would you think it's a bad practice?
Was it bad practice to your opinion?
I don't know whether he had undertaken the IRI training or not, but assuming he had not, would have it been illegal?
I think that Flying without external reference is also part of the PPL syllabus. Would you undertake that part of the training in real clouds without being an IRI? Would you think it's a bad practice?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On top of a hill
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO - No, I think what your instructor did sounds entirely reasonable. In order to teach the basic IF element in the PPL syllabus, you do not have to hold an IRI qualification - any FI can teach it. However, your instructor would obviously have had to be the holder of a current IR (or IMC, if in the UK) in order to actually fly in cloud during the lesson - but that is a separate issue.
Personally, if the circumstances present themselves appropriately, I think it's actually a very good thing to fly in real cloud. It is a different experience when you don't have the chance of peering out of the corners of the dreaded foggles/hood/poorly fitting aircraft screens!
Personally, if the circumstances present themselves appropriately, I think it's actually a very good thing to fly in real cloud. It is a different experience when you don't have the chance of peering out of the corners of the dreaded foggles/hood/poorly fitting aircraft screens!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
On my FI course, I was taught to conduct this PPL exercise in cloud, I maintain my IMC rating mostly to enable me to do this. I obtain a traffic service from our local radar unit, usually very helpful.
TOO
TOO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I want to summarise what has been said so far:
It's obvious that a CRI may never fly under IFR with a student if the CRI is not an IRI, but it's a good practice for a FI who is not an IRI to do so.
I fail to see how it is substantiated by the regulation.
It's obvious that a CRI may never fly under IFR with a student if the CRI is not an IRI, but it's a good practice for a FI who is not an IRI to do so.
I fail to see how it is substantiated by the regulation.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South West UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see how it is substantiated by the regulation.
It's been a great debate but I feel we've come to a point where we are all entrenched in our opinions and so, as they say in Dragon's Den, I'm out!
Happy landings
3 Point
