QFI coverage
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QFI coverage
Could someone please explain the rules requiring an AFI to be covered/supervised by a QFI? Is this still a requirement or have things changed recently. Does the QFI have to be a member of the same FTO or can it be someone from another FTO. Does the supervising QFI have to be present on the airfield or can he provide cover from home?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ANO Schedule 8 list the priviliges of licences and ratings. There are now very few AFIs however; the Article states that: the holder of such a rating shall only give instruction under the supervision of a person present during the take off and landing at the aerodrome at which instruction is to begin and end and hold a pilots licence endorsed with a FI rating.
For the FI(R) rating it states that instruction shall only carried out under the supervision of the holder of a flight instructor rating, approved for this purpose.
What constitutes supervision? Well its down to what a court would consider reasonable if there was an accident. If the supervising FI was not in a position to "oversee" the AFI or FI(R) and stop them if they were doing something wrong, I doubt they would wish to be held responsible for the actions of the AFI/FI(R).
For the FI(R) rating it states that instruction shall only carried out under the supervision of the holder of a flight instructor rating, approved for this purpose.
What constitutes supervision? Well its down to what a court would consider reasonable if there was an accident. If the supervising FI was not in a position to "oversee" the AFI or FI(R) and stop them if they were doing something wrong, I doubt they would wish to be held responsible for the actions of the AFI/FI(R).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FTO or RTF must list on their application all the FI(R)s that are used and also list which FI's are responsible for supervision of the FI(R)s.
When it comes time to remove the restriction, it is the supervising FI who will make the recomendation.
JAR-FCL does not specify the level of supervision. Which continues the system that was in effect outside of the UK for years.
A point worth remembering is that the UK has had a system where most instructors were FIs and only a few inexperienced ones were AFIs while they gained some experience.
However, in other countries the practice was that the CFI and Deputy would hold FI qualifications while all other instructors within the organisation would be AFIs regardless of experience. Thus it would not be reasonable for a CFI to be present at the airfield for possibly 10 to 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year. That is not to say that they would not be aware of what is happening.
I think that a good definition of supervision is what the CAA does in the UK.......there is not a CAA official present at every take-off and landing but they know what is happening overall and thus regulate a very safe industry.
Regards,
DFC
When it comes time to remove the restriction, it is the supervising FI who will make the recomendation.
JAR-FCL does not specify the level of supervision. Which continues the system that was in effect outside of the UK for years.
A point worth remembering is that the UK has had a system where most instructors were FIs and only a few inexperienced ones were AFIs while they gained some experience.
However, in other countries the practice was that the CFI and Deputy would hold FI qualifications while all other instructors within the organisation would be AFIs regardless of experience. Thus it would not be reasonable for a CFI to be present at the airfield for possibly 10 to 12 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year. That is not to say that they would not be aware of what is happening.
I think that a good definition of supervision is what the CAA does in the UK.......there is not a CAA official present at every take-off and landing but they know what is happening overall and thus regulate a very safe industry.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep have no problems with doing that. depending on the local setup.
If your in the circuit behined them you are more aware what they are up to / conditions. Than if you were on the ground.
If they are on a nav ex and you are local, ATC can tell you if there is a problem.
Wouldn't do it though if I was about to disappear off on a landaway. Unless it was one of the local lads who was waiting to get his NPPL through the post after their Class 2 got revoked.
MJ
If your in the circuit behined them you are more aware what they are up to / conditions. Than if you were on the ground.
If they are on a nav ex and you are local, ATC can tell you if there is a problem.
Wouldn't do it though if I was about to disappear off on a landaway. Unless it was one of the local lads who was waiting to get his NPPL through the post after their Class 2 got revoked.
MJ
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your input.
Not to sure where the C.A.A. stand on this question.
I know of some instructors who do, and a lot who dont.
I know the supervising Instructor should be contactable,
but how is that defined? or is it defined and where?
Not to sure where the C.A.A. stand on this question.
I know of some instructors who do, and a lot who dont.
I know the supervising Instructor should be contactable,
but how is that defined? or is it defined and where?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA proberly don't care until something goes wrong.
Then they will be after you and the rules are written so they can bend them as they see fit.
What can the instructor do for you sitting on the ground that they can't do in the air?
Sod all, thats why we send you solo. In fact being on the end of a mic in the circuit is more supervison for the student than if I am sitting on the can in the flying school.
MJ
Then they will be after you and the rules are written so they can bend them as they see fit.
What can the instructor do for you sitting on the ground that they can't do in the air?
Sod all, thats why we send you solo. In fact being on the end of a mic in the circuit is more supervison for the student than if I am sitting on the can in the flying school.
MJ
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
So what about the situation where all the unrestricted instructors are in fact holders of UK QFI ratings, while all the restricted instructors are holders of restricted JAA FI(A) ratings? Do the JAA rules apply (i.e. no specific requirement for supervising instructor to be present at t/o and landing) or the UK ones?
If they are QFIs then they will be military pilots and local powers of authorisation will define precisely the degree of supervision required.
There is NO SUCH THING as a civil 'QFI'. You are either a FI qualified to teach for a JAR-FCL licence or rating, an AFI under the old UK system but still qualified to teach for JAR-FCL having signed the 'declaration of knowledge' certificate - or a FI(R) having graduated from a course under the JAR-FCL system.
If you cannot be more precise with your terms, then I suggest that you take some time out to learn the correct meanings and definitions. For example, do you know the difference between the terms 're-validate', 'renew', 're-authorise' and 're-issue'? If not, then you should. Too often we hear from FIs (usually airline wannabes rather than career instructors) who haven't bothered to keep up with the changes under JAR-FCL. That shows a singular lack of professionalism; I hope that they don't treat their customers in the same gash manner.
There is NO SUCH THING as a civil 'QFI'. You are either a FI qualified to teach for a JAR-FCL licence or rating, an AFI under the old UK system but still qualified to teach for JAR-FCL having signed the 'declaration of knowledge' certificate - or a FI(R) having graduated from a course under the JAR-FCL system.
If you cannot be more precise with your terms, then I suggest that you take some time out to learn the correct meanings and definitions. For example, do you know the difference between the terms 're-validate', 'renew', 're-authorise' and 're-issue'? If not, then you should. Too often we hear from FIs (usually airline wannabes rather than career instructors) who haven't bothered to keep up with the changes under JAR-FCL. That shows a singular lack of professionalism; I hope that they don't treat their customers in the same gash manner.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair comment BEagle.
Its more to the point that the FI's who have been JAR only have never been exposed to the old UK system. And the term QFI is banned about in many schools who are none mil. And it is taken as FI unrestricted.
As for the re validate etc I have seen examiners cock that one up.
MJ
Its more to the point that the FI's who have been JAR only have never been exposed to the old UK system. And the term QFI is banned about in many schools who are none mil. And it is taken as FI unrestricted.
As for the re validate etc I have seen examiners cock that one up.
MJ
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
BEagle
Couldn't agree more, but the problem is that a number of the commonly used terms have no official status - QFI is as you point out one of the regulars, but also there is no such thing as an FI(R). When you pass your FI test you are awarded a Flight Instructor (Aeroplanes) rating. You are therefore an FI(A). Lots of people talk about "the FI(R) course" but there is no such thing.
And while it may be correct to say you're either an FI, an AFI or a restricted FI, my original point was that Schedule 8 provides for
(1) supervision of AFIs by holders of UK Flying Instructor's ratings (who I've never heard called "FIs" by the way), and
(2) rather less stringent supervision of restricted JAA FI(A) rating holders by unrestricted JAA FI(A)s. But there are no provisions in Schedule 8 for the supervision of restricted FI(A)s by UK FI holders - nor for that matter supervision of AFIs by JAA FI(A)s.
Pedant, moi? Perhaps. But there are a lot of supervising instructors around with UK ratings, while probably most restricted instructors nowadays are JAA rating holders. Strictly speaking the regs have no provision for these circumstances - unless you're telling me that "Flying instructor's rating" and "Flight instructor rating (aeroplane)" are the same thing.
If you cannot be more precise with your terms, then I suggest that you take some time out to learn the correct meanings and definitions.
And while it may be correct to say you're either an FI, an AFI or a restricted FI, my original point was that Schedule 8 provides for
(1) supervision of AFIs by holders of UK Flying Instructor's ratings (who I've never heard called "FIs" by the way), and
(2) rather less stringent supervision of restricted JAA FI(A) rating holders by unrestricted JAA FI(A)s. But there are no provisions in Schedule 8 for the supervision of restricted FI(A)s by UK FI holders - nor for that matter supervision of AFIs by JAA FI(A)s.
Pedant, moi? Perhaps. But there are a lot of supervising instructors around with UK ratings, while probably most restricted instructors nowadays are JAA rating holders. Strictly speaking the regs have no provision for these circumstances - unless you're telling me that "Flying instructor's rating" and "Flight instructor rating (aeroplane)" are the same thing.
See the list of abbreviations in LASORS....
(Including where they've porked up ADF, AFI and AIC!)
FI(R) most definitely is listed.
Unless a 'UK Flying Instructor' has signed the 'Declaration of knowledge', he/she cannot instruct for a JAR-FCL licence or rating. By now everyone must have revalidated or renewed their FI rating to do so, so what exactly is your point? If you're a current FI then it makes not the slightest difference whether you qualified as a Flying Instructor under the old scheme or as a Flight Instructor under JAR-FCL. Whereas their is a difference between an AFI and a FI(R)............
(Including where they've porked up ADF, AFI and AIC!)
FI(R) most definitely is listed.
Unless a 'UK Flying Instructor' has signed the 'Declaration of knowledge', he/she cannot instruct for a JAR-FCL licence or rating. By now everyone must have revalidated or renewed their FI rating to do so, so what exactly is your point? If you're a current FI then it makes not the slightest difference whether you qualified as a Flying Instructor under the old scheme or as a Flight Instructor under JAR-FCL. Whereas their is a difference between an AFI and a FI(R)............
