Supervision of restricted FIs FCL.910.FI

[Broadlands]

I have inherited an interesting situation taking over as HoT. Due to a lack of full FIs, a restricted FI is being supervised by a microlight FI. Apparently the CAA agreed to this, but I can not find any reference to this in Part FCL basic regs, AMCs or the ANO.

The text of FCL.910.FI states

An FI shall have his/her privileges limited to conducting flight instruction under the supervision of an FI for the same category of aircraft nominated by the ATO for this purpose

, so this seems to say that the FI must be supervised by a full FI. If there was an exception, then surely this would appear in AMC.

Putting aside the best practice and and concentrating purely on the legal side, has anyone seen this before? Obviously taking over as HoT (again) this has alarmed me just a little.

Please don't launch into advice about what should happen - I am aware and just need to resolve this issue.
Cheers

[Whopity]

This is a classic case of our intrepid regulator making it up as they go along. A Microlight FI has no capacity under the EU Regulations and therefore does not meet the requirements of FCL.910. It doesn't matter what the CAA says, it is not legal. You say, "apparenly the CAA agreed", do you have that in writing? If not, it is merely hearsay and has no validity at all. I doubt that anyone would be prepared to put their name to such a statement, but in this day and age nothing would surprise me. As HoT you operate in accordance with the regulation and you are home and dry. Anything that appears contrary to the regulation is exactly that. Put simply, there is nothing to resolve, your Microlight FI is not even in the loop.

[Broadlands]

Thanks, I figured that would be the case. I had better readjust a few things.

[Pittsextra]

The CAA can act to give freedoms as they see fit. After all if one is acting in accordance with CAA guidance why should you fall foul of any regulation afterwards? The scenario you paint seems entirely reasonable and [without knowing the restricted instructor experience] perhaps the supervisory element means what exactly in terms of value add. The interesting piece will be the cross country navigation part. Although surely the easiest starting point is the supervising FI?? He must have clarity of where he got his guidance from?

[Duchess_Driver]

Because unfortunately, the CAA are not the regulator anymore. 1178/2011 and subsequent amending Regulations are European Law, have to be implemented and cannot be gold plated. The U.K. CAA are just the policemen.

Now, the more interesting part, Part-FCL, ORA, ORO, or ARA do not define “Supervision” as applied in this case.

[Pittsextra]

The scenario isnt entirely clear but as you say if they are the policeman who makes an issue if they give specific guidance? Who polices the police?

[TheOddOne]

As a part of our DTO paperwork, we decided as a Club to define supervision in this case as the supervisor being on site, if flying then only in the circuit. We knew we didn't have to do this, but it's what we wanted to do. Our most recent FI(R) had a supervisor on site at all times (but giving him plenty of elbow-room) and has now thankfully had the restriction removed, so I can now take occasional Sundays off!

TOO

[Genghis the Engineer]

Presumably this is not actually instruction on microlight aeroplanes?

G

[Whopity]

who makes an issue if they give specific guidance?

Even the Police are not permitted to give guidance on breaking the law.

[Broadlands]

Well, my direction certainly has gone down like a lead balloon today. Unfortunately the individuals who came up this are away so I have no idea how this started. The shortage of FIs is a real pain!

[Whopity]

Think of the repercussions if there had been an accident involving a restricted FI under the supervision of a totally unqualified person. And if such an accident had involved the death of somone wealthy, any subsequent litigation might have gone down like an even bigger lead balloon.

In case you haven't noticed EASA has an online pilot survey where you can give them some feed back See 31st January 2019
SW2019/16
or respond to the survey here: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner...on2018industry

[B2N2]

Not only if that person was wealthy I hope.

[Fl1ingfrog]

I'm baffled that anyone should claim that the UK CAA is not the UK regulator. Flying is not regulated by EASA anywhere. EASA make the rules which, subject to it's contract with the EU, the UK parliament then pass into law. It is interesting that the EASA regulations are interpreted differently throughout the EU in many matters. The CAA is the UK regulator for all aviation matters extending from package holidays to ballooning, microlights and much in the news at the moment, drones. Flying in the UK is in accordance with the UK ANO. Should you be in breach of it it is the CAA that may prosecute you not EASA.

The definition of "supervision" is much debated and has never been satisfactorily resolved in the UK. Is it a qualified someone who will from time to time inspect the FI(r) training records and perhaps give advice or must they be hands on and always in attendance and overseeing when the FI(r) is teaching? The CAA has demonstrated consistently that the latter is not the case. Broadlands provided the relevant ANO abstract which is simple and clear.

[Broadlands]

Whopity
I had not seen the survey, but it is now complete.

[Duchess_Driver]

And that’s the misconception- it’s European Law and the U.K. until 29/3 is bound to uphold and has to respect decisions of the ECJ. That is for EASA stuff anyway - which is where this discussion started.

Stuff that is non-EASA (Annex II) is regulated by the CAA and the ANO applies.

[Whopity]

Stuff that is non-EASA (Annex II)

Since the change in the Basic Regulation to EU 2018/1139 which repealed EC 216/2008 Annex II became Annex I

[Fl1ingfrog]

The Air Navigation Order (ANO) is applicable to all flight within the UK.

[Broadlands]

The plot thickens.
I am looking at an email that was received from the CAA Inspector that states
"To be honest there is no regulation that places any rules around the supervision of Flying Instructors" and it goes on to say clubs can set their own requirements.
The source documentation contradicts this statement, so this looks like an odd situation where the inspector could be wrong. Any thoughts?

[BEagle]

That simply means that there is no regulation which states how supervision is effected at a particular RF/DTO. It does not mean that Part-FCL regulations regarding who may supervise may be over-ridden and decided by 'clubs' setting their own requirements.

I would be very surprised if a CAA Inspector suggested that supervision of restricted FIs by Microlight instructors was acceptable.

[Whopity]

"To be honest there is no regulation that places any rules around the supervision of Flying Instructors"

That is correct, the UK ANO used to stipulate that the supervising FI should be present at the airfield, but neither the JAA nor EASA rules have included any such requirement however: FCL910 is quite clear about who may supervise:

(a) An FI shall have his/her privileges limited to conducting flight instruction under the supervision of
an FI for the same category of aircraft nominated by the ATO for this purpose,