there is no training required unless you have let it lapse.

Or for example a CRI could do differences training for a glass cockpit IMC which lets face it is the only thing glass is really good at.

The regs say training for...., not training required for...

However, since voluntary training is not checked, and in any case both instructor and trainee can legally be PIC, I would rather have g1000 ifr training from an experienced CRI who has flown behind it in real life than from an FI who has instructed for the IR, but never ever loaded a flight plan, let a lone a procedure and activated it.. (I showed TWO how to do that - should have charged them instead of paying)

There is nothing to prohibit a CRI or an FI conducting revalidation training for a licence holder at night, provided the person they are training and the instructor are both night qualified; what they can't do is training for a night qualification. Only a FI can do that if they have the additional tick to give instruction for a night rating/qualification. As they are not actually training for the issue of a licence or rating, they don't even need to be a FI or a CRI.

A slight absurdity is that a night+instrument qualified & current CRI could do IRI reasonably easily, but would have to do a full FI course to be able to teach for the NQ. It's just how the system is, but not very sensible or logical in that regard.

The FI rating as printed on the licence says "no aerobatics" whilst the CRI rating does not. Ditto "no applied instruments", but in that case the existence of the IRI/IMCRI qualification(s) clarify matters somewhat.

I've taught, as a CRI with the full knowledge of a school CFI and subsequent sight of CAA, the instrument component of the NPPL(SSEA), with nobody batting an eyelid; but I imagine that most FIs have too. Neither I nor an FI should be teaching for, say, the IMC/IR(R) without holding IRI or IMCRI however - I think that's pretty clear.

G

Which is entirely meaningless as an FI rating is not currently required in order to give aerobatics training. The privilege to give instruction in aerobatics is included in the licence and not the FI rating. This will, of course, no longer be the case after 17 Sep when an instructor certificate will be required for the delivery of any and all flight training in an aircraft.

Having read through CAP804 etc, I can't establish what is required to be an
FI(LAPL) verses an FI(PPL) etc. Is it complete the full FI course without the CPL writtens? or something else?

Many thanks IMC

The pre-requisite for a FI applicant to have passed the CPL exams does not apply to a PPL(A) holder wishing to instruct at LAPL(A) level only.

All other pre-requisites, such as experience, still apply. The FI course is the same and the pass standard is the same whether you wish to instruct at LAPL or PPL level.

Incidentally, amongst other requirements, an IRI under part-FCL will need to have achieved 800 hours of 'flight under IFR'; to provide instruction for the IR, an FI will need to meet similar requirments but to have achieved a lower figure of 200 hrs of 'flight under IFR'.....

Hence AOPA has proposed an IRI (Restricted) certificate to the CAA, to be included in a part-FCL licence, which will require the same pre-requisites as the current 'removal of no applied instrument' restrictions.

Finally, don't think that, just because the 'no applied instrument' caveat will disappear from your part-FCL licence on 17 Sep, you'll be able to provide instrument instruction with no further requirements! See 'FCL.905.FI FI Privileges and Conditions' in CAP 804 Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 1.

There is a very simple explanation for that. The CRI was a new JAA rating and if you look at a JAA FI rating, there is no such thing as "no aerobatics"; "no night"; or "no applied instruments" either. These are hangovers from the pre JAA UK National system that continued because the CAA's computer had not been programmed to cope with the change. Each JAA rating has privileges as defined in JAR-FCL; just because it doesn't have a UK style limitation, doesn't mean that the holder has carte blanch to do what they want, they only have privileges as defined in JAR-FCL 1 or 2. If the holder wishes to add privileges, then they must obtain the relevant qualification.

The UK system was based upon removing "limitations" whilst the JAA system is based upon adding additional qualifications. At least under EASA, the CAA will have to finally get rid of the old UK "limitations"

Think back a few years, a Unrestricted FI was one who could give instrument instruction, because the Applied IF Course (exactly the same as the IRI course) was the only way you could upgrade from AFI to FI and remove the AFI restrictions. Ah, the good old days!

My licence has exactly what I can teach on it, next to my FI(A) it states,PPL, CPL Night (Unrestricted) My IRI allows me to teach IR and IMCr and next to my CRI it just states Nil restriction as I have both SE/ME privileges.

I have a few other oddballs thrown in for good measure but that's the gist!

Class Rating Instructor
 

As a new Class Rating Instructor I am trying to fully understand what I can and can't do. This seems to be a more complicated area than I envisaged and not helped by the new EASA regulations.

I was asked the other day if I could do the differences training for someone with an old UK PPL SLMG in order for them to fly SEP. As they have a licence and that licence has not lapsed I would think that this is within my remit?

I have also been asked if I can provide training someone who allowed their licence to lapse some years ago?

I've been a fairly active CRI for 2 years, by all means drop me an email (not a PM please) if you want to talk through any of the issues.

NPPL(SLMG) [or NPPL(M) ]--> NPPL(SSEA) is within your remit, but NPPL --> EASA-PPL is not, for odd historic reasons not worth exploring as it seems unlikely to change.

You do however need to do it within a training organisation, and they will need an examiner, you can't just sign those ones off as differences training.

Training of a lapsed PPL to allow them to revalidate by skill test / proficiency check is also possible, but as the requirement is that they need to do training as required by the CFI of a training organisation, you need to be working within a training organisation, you can't just freelance it.

G

This is a licence that only permits the holder to fly a SLMG; you cannot add ratings to it. In order to fly SEP then they will either need an EASA licence or an NPPL to be issued.

Thank you both.

G, I will email with some queries. Thanks.

Interesting about the old UK PPL SLMG.

What am I able to do outside of an ATO?

BFRs, differences training and syndicate / rental checkouts or currency mainly, plus aerobatics and any kind of general skill improvement for existing qualified pilots - which is actually quite a lot.

G

...in EASA aircraft until 08th April 2015.

ifitaint...

Several posters said that a CRI has privileges that a FI(R) has not.
FCL.910.FI FI – Restricted privileges
(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, in the following cases:
(1) for the issue of the PPL, SPL, BPL and LAPL;
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(3) for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, class and group extensions in the case of balloons and class extensions in the case of sailplanes;
(4) for the night, towing or aerobatic ratings.

My understanding is that a FI(R) may, out of an ATO/RTF, and unsupervised, train for differences (TW etc.) and the do the one hour SEP revalidation flight. Is it your understanding as well?

No. I asked this question when I was a restricted instructor and the response from the CAA was very clear. As a restricted instructor you must be supervised for any training that you do.

FCL.910.FI FI – Restricted privileges
(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, in the following cases:
(1) for the issue of the PPL, SPL, BPL and LAPL;
(2) in all integrated courses at PPL level, in case of aeroplanes and helicopters;
(3) for class and type ratings for single-pilot, single-engine aircraft, class and group extensions in the case of balloons and class extensions in the case of sailplanes;
(4) for the night, towing or aerobatic ratings.

It is specifically written that the restriction applies only in certain cases: I infer that there must be cases where the restriction does not apply, otherwise the wording would have been simpler, such as "any training done must be supervised".

But, as a CRI, I don't need supervision for that, so there is a difference.

G

When JAR-FCL first appeared the privileges of the FI included those of a CRI, but it was very quickly changed. I have never heard any explanation of why!

Because there was a bun fight when someone was instructing the one hour dual unsupervised and restricted i heard and got reported by another school on the same field.

I doubt the JAA were influenced by a "bub fight"!

I suspect they were when the person the bun fight was with was one of ones on the committees.

I believe it went "you can't do that, its illegal"

"Yes I can"

" I am telling you, you can't"

"Here is the reference that I have CRI rights which doesn't require supervision"

huffing puffing and you require supervision etc but the CRI not requiring supervision card kept being played.

Then 2 weeks later the rules changed with no notice or consultation.

If its true or not I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.