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.

A CPL course includes 10 hours IF but the instructor doesn't have to be an IRI!

But to teach the Basic Instrument Flight Module, which attracts the same credit towards the IR, he does. Where's the logic in that?

That of course depends on whether the "proper" instructor is any good or not. I've flown with some awful examples who couldn't teach IF if their life depended on it, despite their being qualified to do so. I'm talking about a basic scan and how to drive the nav kit properly, nothing complicated.

And of course it will cost more, so there will probably be no takers!

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.

is there any place this is quoted ?
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.

If we go back to about 2001 a very nice lady at the CAA (E C-H) who looked after Examiners used to advise PPL schools that this was the case. A FI can teach Ex 19 and Radio Navigation but to teach Instrument Approaches or Limited Panel you have to have the no applied IF limitation removed. Nothing has materially changed since then. An interesting JAA anomaly is that a CPL Course includes LP but, a FI who can teach on such a course has never been taught to teach LP!

Don't see why they would, as Whopity said, any FI can teach Ex19 basic IF (and Ex18c radio nav) . I've had several customers send off applications to the CAA for an IMCr, with their training following that scenario initially, then I've conducted the applied IF/IAPs. They've all been issued without question, don't know whether anyone at Gatwick actually checks such things though?

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.. :rolleyes:

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.

RVR800, agree totally! The lunatics are certainly running the asylums now - I defy anybody to really understand all this complex bureaucratic nonsense - roll on the revolution!

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?

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.