CRI vs FI Privelages?
 

I was being asked the other day about my qualifications, having stated that I am a Full FI, I was then asked if I was a CRI as well, and the implication seemed to be that this gives Priveleges in addition to the FI, with the CRI having come in (many moons) after me qualifying as an FI I had never really looked at it as it always seemed a "lower" rating (not putting CRIs down, just can't think of a better way to put it), are there things that being a CRI gives you that. Full FI cannot do?

So far as I know, no, there's nothing I can do as a CRI that you as a full FI can't do.

I can however, unlike an FI(R), work without direct supervision of an FI, and do biennial instructor flights. On the other hand the FI(R) gives the ability to teach ab-initio, which I can't do and an FI(R) has a much easier route to FI than I do, which for me basically means going back to scratch again regardless of my instructing hours.

G

Other than work unsupervised until the FI restriction is lifted, I am aware of nothing that a CRI can do that a fully fledged FI can't.

Willing to be proved wrong though!

HTH

DD

Just a thought - as a CRI I can do CRE reasonably easily (in theory anyhow, in practice not so easy I gather): is that route open to an FI?

G

As an FI you have the privilege to train for a licence or rating. A CRI only has the privilege to train licence holders for an aircraft rating. Under the new EASA rules they will be able to train for additional ratings that they hold but so will the FI.

When JAR-FCL was first printed it stated that the FI was also a CRI(SE) but that disappeared at around AL1 or 2 nevertheless, the CRI has less privileges than the FI.

Perhaps the major difference is that an FI (R) must be supervised for all activities whereas a CRI, who cannot conduct ab-initio instruction, does not have to be supervised.

Seems much as I thought, not (R) myself so can't really understand why it was asked.

It is annoying that as an FI(R) you are not allowed to train qualified pilots unsupervised, whereas a CRI with 1/10th the training can.

It would be sensible to issue the FI(R) with a CRI so that they can do this.

They don't have any restrictions currently.

ie they can teach applied instrument, aero's and at night with no additional sign offs.

No supervision required.

Always wondered about a CRI signing folk out solo though. Can they do it?

No - in fact a CRI can not even instruct a student until they have obtained a licence. A CRI can not fly a "Trial Lesson" as that is also ab-initio.

The CRI is limited to instructing licenced pilot's only.

I know that GEP

But they can also do revalidation training for a class rating if it is out.

An item of which may be deemed to be solo work. Well I let them go up and practise circuits or a nav ex if they wanted to as a FI.

Interesting point MJ. my interpretation of LASORs is that the CRI can only instruct the person if they hold a VALID licence, ie not expired.

We are not talking about an expired license we are talking about an expired class rating.

I would also say that an expired license still means you would be a license holder for example a pilot holding a life CAA PPL would still be deemed to hold a license after 40 years not flying.

Also if the pilot held a license with another class rating such a one of the put-put glider ratings then they would also be able to do the training for SEP class rating to be issued.

The CRI is a very powerful rating with minimal training/experence requirements and also with minimal experence requirments for keeping it valid. Personally I am suprised there are not more of them out there in groups and clubs. They usally have a far broader experence base in aircraft types and have real experence compared to the usual zero to heros.

Since they are have been around there has been no indication that accidents have increased, I haven't seen one yet thats been involved in an accident. It would be interesting to know the hours flown as CRI V hours as a FI to see if the statitics back up my feeling that they are at the same risk as FI's who are meant to better trained because they have CPL knowledge.

I don't know how you guys in europe get anything done. our rules seem so much easier to follow. and isn't flying hard enough without the nutty rules.

I had never even heard of a CRI ever before this thread.

USA GUY

I think its basis was for a commercial operator of single engined aircraft could maintain its teaching requiments without having full blown FI's on its books.

It would be rather difficult for them to keep a FI valid and also there wasn't much need for them to teach fresh meat.

So they banged out a rating which allowed everything a commercial operator would require to keep things ticking along. A bit like on bigger things a TRI can do OPC's and a line trainer can do line checks etc. So a CRI could teach at night and under instrument conditions.

Nobody had cross checked it with the FI rating. It turned out that actually apart from teaching PPL's the CRI was actually all that most pilots would need access to. It costs next to nothing to get with minimal days training and is very easy to keep valid.

To be honest I think it was sprung on the UK CAA if they had known about it and what it was valid to teach I really don't think it would be as it is today.

Yes it is. I hold a CRE and FE and have both FI(A) and CRI(A) SE/ME as ratings. I know of a number of FI(A) with CRE.

The CRE is way more difficult to achieve than the FE because it is meant to be a sponsored industry rating and is assessed by CAA Staff Examiners unlike the FE that can be done by Industry. It is also way more expensive to gain and maintain.

You invariable find the CRI is done by way more experienced pilots for a specific reason, whereas the FI(A) is done as a stepping stone by very inexperienced pilots. The extra training of the FI largely offsets the lack of experience in my opinion. So I think its a bit if ing/yang!

I don't think that there are all that many of us as yet, and I don't see the numbers increasing much. The well regarded FIC school where I did mine had had one previously who had failed - and I only know one other CRI personally.

However, I and the other CRI I know have lifetime experiences of aviation, and a couple of degrees in aeronautics each, plus 4-figure hours, so probably rather more than many new CPLs have.

Also the standards of the CRI test that I had to pass seemed similar to, or higher than, what I needed to pass my CPL. So I really do not see this as a shortcut to allow inexperienced PPLs to become instructors: I just don't believe that this is happening, or is at-all likely to happen.


One thing has come up for me however, which is the "solo issue". I recently trained a microlight + glider pilot for his NPPL(SSEA). There could, arguably, have been benefits in sending my student solo for some solo circuits or a local flight. I discussed this with the CFI of the school I was teaching in, and we agreed that if this seemed a good idea we'd do it on his licence with his authorisation, although we never did (and he did get a good first time pass).

But similarly, before signing off somebody's tailwheel differences it would be nice to send them off for a few solo circuits before finishing off. Freelancing however, it's simply not possibly on my licence - so I just have to sign them off when ready and fly with them until then. Not perfect, but workable.

G

You would not do that as an FI either......

Differences training do not have any solo elements in them. So for a tailwheel difference you would train them, sign them up and send them off.

The registered facility that I work at recently took on a CRI and he is excellent.

We were actually looking for an FI but the calibre of applicants was poor. None of their CV demonstrated any interest in GA. All had a bare minimum of hours and virtually all of them had never done any unsupervised/none training flights. And as unbelievable as it may sound one had never even flown in the UK. Frankly from our point of view they are unemployable.

The CRI however was a totally different kettle of fish. Holding FAA CPL, CFI, CFII as well as a locally acquired JAR PPL. It was obvious from his CV he had a strong GA interest and has proved himself to be quite an asset by bringing in a fair amount of extra work FAA BFR etc

In fact I would go as far as saying its a shame there isn't a few more like him around.

Fair point, well made.

G

The student flying on an instructors licence thing is an urban myth - they fly under the ANO Article 52 exemption, which as discussed does need to be as directed by an FI not a CRI.

I have very mixed feelings about CRIs, I know some very experienced and capable ones but have also flown with several who wouldn't even pass a PPL skills test and whose instructional ability was frankly dire. I think a lot of it comes down to how much they do / how current they are and how they are mentored.