CTC Fully Sponsored Instructor Program-IFR Hours
 

Hi All ,

Can anyone shed any light on the IFR hours required for this program CTC are offering.

I am a FI and have over 1000hrs of instruction and I have held a IMC years before my IR. I have log over 150 hrs of IF Time comprising of teaching Ex19 for the ppl the time I have conducted lessons VMC on top the hours I have done for my IR and IMC flying in my spare time to keep it all fresh.

Now apart from my IR course all the other hours have not been airways flying. I am not sure if I qualifiy for the CTC program and was wondering if anyone could shed any light on this because the way I see it not many average instructors will be able to apply for this.

I may be stating the obvious..... but have you tried calling CTC and asking?

mmm not thought to do that ! :D Just to clear up the obvious I have contacted CTC the lady on the phone could not tell me nor would she put me through to a person who could, told me to email my question but still no reply !! Hence the reason I put the post up !

Thank you

If CTC are looking for instructors to teach on their integrated course then they will need people who meet the EASA requirement to become an Instrument instructor. This requirement is 200 hours flight time under IFR. Without that you will be of no use to them What surprises me is that they only want 150, not 200 hours!

Quite clearly this is going to impose a major problem finding future instructors who can teach for the IR. The UK CAA recognised this back in 1998 pre JAA but it appears nobody has learned anything over the last 14 years!

50 hours in their sim?

Three of the four instructors at the RF that I work at meet these requirements so you would think we would be ideal to teach for something like the competency based IR.

Yet the CAA have objected on the grounds that only FTO have sufficient experience to teach it.

Obviously this isn't the case..

This has been done before on another thread. It might be that EASA (and CTC) have got a little mixed up between 'instrument flight' and 'flight under IFR'.

The requirement of 200 hours IFR time for the the IRI does not mention that it has to be with sole reference to instruments (apart from the simulator bit which is optional). Nor does the CTC job advert.

It's actually very easy to fly in accordance with the instrument flight rules in the UK. You don't need an IR and you don't have to file a flight plan. In theory, you can just follow the relevent rules of the air and log your IFR time!

On the other hand, most of the instrument flying during my IR was under the hood whilst flying VFR. In theory this wouldn't count towards the IFR requirement!

I'm sure that this isn't what the very clever eurocrats actually meant when they wrote their new rules. I would *guess* they meant 'instrument flight' instead of IFR. But write it they did.

The upshot is that anyone with about 500 hours or more can claim to have 200 hours IFR and it would be very difficult to prove them wrong. They wouldn't even need an IR.

As for the CTC side of things, ask them to clarify the IFR requirement if you get an interview.

Don't get me started on VFR/IFR at night in the UK. A complete mess.

No, the not very clever Eurocrats simply copied it from JAR-FCL 1.330 which has said: "time in accordance with the instrument flight rules" since about 1995. There is no evidence to suggest that the Eurocrats had any comprehension of the process whatsoever.Maybe not with a UK National Licence but all JAA licences state:The other issue is that there is absolutely no requirement to log IFR time, so nobody has a record of it anyway.
The CAA are only complying with the European rules and have little choice in the matter.

It's an interesting argument - I can understand Mickey's frustration at his school as an RF not meeting the requirements to do the work. However I guess we live in an ever increasingly litigious world where procedures in all respects have to be documented for repeatability and provability. The staffing requirements for such procedures at a RF against an FTO prevent a lot pursuing it through a simple commercial equation. The cost involved in making the step to a FTO as against an RF is not justified for the extra work and income that would come through the door in the short term.

In my opinion its an expensive and difficult step to justify at a small RF, natural evolution of an RF will often see it grow into a FTO, however commercial decisions have to be made.

But, by 8 April 2015 all RFs will have to transition to an ATO with an approval fee of £1000 for the first 4 hours approval work and £173/hour thereafter. Would it be a reasonable assumption that the number of schools offering PPL training will reduce by 50% or even more?

173 quid an hour. Crikes a consultant eye surgeon charges less than that !

Also is it just one grand all in or is it a grand for each approval eg ppl, night and IMC would set you back 3 grand.

My point was the cost / time of implementing the current requirements for an upgrade to FTO is expensive (I would envisage significantly more than the £1000 fee + £173 / hr after 4hrs)

From FCL Standards document 38:


The training manual and quality manual (and implementation) will on its own cost a lot both in cash and time.


To implement a quality system at any company is both laborious and expensive. It might seem that it only says and documents the obvious, however it takes a lot more effort/time/cost than people realise at first glance.

That appears to be the fee for any approval that is not listed in the scheme of charges. MEP is around £500, FIC £700, IR is over £1200 with another £700 if you have a sim, so PPL IMC etc should all group together. The scheme of charges looks as if it was picked up off the floor after being dropped, as it lacks any form of coherence.

Couldn't give us a link could you.

Shocking state of affairs when the cost of a rf goes from nothing to thousands of pounds for NO evidence of improved safety.

ORS 5 No:269
Even "Call me Dave" wants a referendum now!

In the interests of confirming my own understanding, I thought there was requirement to log IFR time but not to log actual instrument time (unless it is under training).

Where in the ANO does it say anything about recording flight under IFR? Part-FCL is not yet in effect in the UK and so is not yet relevant. As Whopity quite rightly says, there is (present tense) no legal obligation to record flight time under IFR in the UK nor has there ever been a reason for doing so.

Of course, sorry.

I have been trying to get used to the PART-FCL and have managed to confuse it with what is current.

It is an odd change to make I would have thought. Will the IFR/4 = IF be used to convert post PART-FCL implementation, seeing as there is no need to log IF and IFR time?

No it won't, see AIC W13/2012

The CAA introduced the 1:4 rule because they employed pilots who understood that 200 hours of flight in accordance with IFR was both unverifiable and irrelevant. Looking at Para 3.2 it is apparent that the author of the AIC has little understanding of IFR anywayThere is no JAA or EASA requirement for the IFR experience to be gained under the quoted circumstances.

Once upon a time AICs were checked for inaccuracies before they were released, now it seems they are either not checked, or they no longer employ staff with sufficient knowledge to spot the mistakes.

Shows how well this has all been thought out.

As I understand it, as of the 8/04/12 my JAR-FCL licence automatically became an EASA Part FCL licence.

Now this raises a few questions, wrt flight tests, do the examiners now have to be authorised by the state of licence issue or inform the competent authority and recieve a briefing, before conducting a test on a JAR-FCL(Part FCL) licence holder? I seem to remember that the date of Part FCL coming into law is different depending on the authority. CAA is November am I correct?

Im still trying to get my head around the whole structure of EASA.

Regulation 216/2008 is the Law and powers granted by the European court, but what are the 5 Annexes?

We then have the 2 aircrew regulations 1178/2011 and 290/2012 which includes part FCL amoung others. Where do they fit into the structure?

Where does EU Ops fit in to alll of this?

Thanks for any help