An entirely predictable range of repliesSo what does the Regulation say? Regulation 216/2008 Article 7 So any person under training is exempt the requirement to hold a licence. I have found no definition of a student pilot!
Yes
Yes
So as lonng as the regulations regarding training have been complied with, they have no cause to say anything!

I had spotted that too, and thought it quite amusing that there is a restriction ('shall not..') without a clear definition to whom it applies!

ifitaint...

I would define a student pilot as one who does not hold a licence....

What nonsense.

Is this how you live your life? Every time you get in an aircraft you think what some hypothetical AAIB investigator will have to say about your actions, or what some insurance bod will say.

The insurance is there to cover the aircraft, if it is a flying school this will include solo students. That really is the end of it.

Who cares what the AAIB say anyway? They're there to look at the facts and make safety recommendations, the fact that the student previously held a licence would not be a proximate cause of any accident, so would really not be relevant to the investigation. It would simply be stated at the start of the report as fact, and I'm sure hardly make it in to the conclusion.

"I would define a student pilot as one who does not hold a licence..."

And I would define a student pilot as someone who seeks to learn something about aviation or who is undergoing training to develop his or her skills, knowledge or judgement as a pilot!

I taught groundschool on Thursday to a class of pilots holding ATPLs, were they students? Of course they were!

If I came to you to get my out of date FI renewed would you generate a student record for me even though I hold an ATPL?

A student to me is anyone who is under taking a course of training.

I am student when I take a type rating or class rating until I hold said rating. I am a student while undergoing line training even though I hold all the rights to fly that particular aircraft.

I have a student record for every bit of training I have done be it SEP or multicrew type rating. And only the first 45 hours I didn't have a valid license.

In this case the pilot is a student under taking training for the renewal of the SEP class.

The renewal of a Class they already hold. All the other instances you have quoted are for a new rating.

I would still argue that training for the renewal of a rating does not come under being a student pilot.

We are arguing semantics here I think. Unless the CAA are going to make a ruling it comes down to the head of training to decide. In my case I have decided there will be no solo element for the renewal of a rating. Other heads of training my interpret as they see fit. :ok:

The pilot renewing his class rating has to training as determined and needs a course completion certificate and are therefore a pilot under training; Synonymous with student pilot in most people's book.


The AMC gives HoTs' flexibility in deciding what training is required. That training will vary from student to student and be based on the student needs.


Why toss that flexibility away?

And why does anyone need a reason to go flying?

Even if the flight had no training benefit at all and the pilot just wanted to go up for an hour of circuits and there was an aircraft free why on earth wouldn't you sign them out?

There is no solo requirement for SEP or MEP Ratings.
This is why CRIs can teach for them.

Not training for a Licence - only for a Rating for which there is no solo
requirement - then, by the letter of Part-FCL, no FI has the privileges to
authorise solo flight (because, in this instance, they would be exercising
their CRI privileges)


If it is believed it is allowed then it relies on an FI being the most
"appropriate" Instructor Certificate. I cannot see an FI(R) being appropriate
for this purpose - so no, it cannot count as one of the 25 supervised solos
required to remove the restriction.

I had a lapsed syndicate member a few years ago who had clearly lost all confidence in their own ability to manage the aeroplane on their own - constantly using the person sat next to them as a crutch.

We got the help of an experienced FI who used supervised solo as part of his plan for getting their command confidence back up. It seemed to work.

There is no such thing as cri privileges for FI. Cri is a JAR construction which they really didn`t know what to do with when it appeared. So much so it was ontract that invented the syllabus for it. You have to apply for a new rating if you wish to have cri. You can`t just ask the fie to make it a cri this time.

Only difference between unrestricted and restricted is the requirment to be supervised and no first solos to be authorised. Even if the pilot hasn`t flown for 20 years they have still gone solo so the restricted instructor can signed them out.

The other time i have used this is when someone got failed for class 2 with a current ppl and had a NPPL getting processed with a NPPL medical in hand but no license.

Agreed, FIs do not have CRI privileges (or IRI, TRI or STI privileges for that matter), they have FI privileges in accordance with the relevant paragraphs of FCL.905.FI.

CRI was never intended for the GA market. It was put in to allow commercial single engine operators to do the required training in a SPA.

Which is the reason why in some ways pre EASA the CRI is less restrictive than an FI. They can train at night without doing anything extra and they used to be able to do aero's as well.

But because of the way the UK ANO is set up a CRI in the UK was actually and extremely useful rating for minimal cost. So people started getting them. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of CRI's for SEP are in the UK for Europe.

CRI was the JAA term for a TRI (SPA); in the helicopter world they remained TRIs so everyone knew what they were.

Given
and
I think it is ludicrous to state
or

Its a separate rating.

CRI has some of the privileges of FI. Currently it also has privileges which are not available to FI's without further qualification.

For example a FI without night restriction removed can't go and do 1 circuit at night with a pilot for there night currency. A CRI can without any further training or addition to their license.

The FI can't just say I am off to fly at night using my CRI privileges.

True

Not true - If you believe so then please give example(s)

The "no night instruction" restriction does not exist under EASA. There
is only a requirement in order to instruct for the Night Rating (which is not
a CRI privilege).

Why not? If you believe a CRI has the privilege to instruct at night.

I haven't looked at the EASA changes yet as I don't hold a EASA licence. I am still bound by my current license restrictions.

But having a quick look at 804 it appears neither are allowed to instruct for 90 day currency or for currency at night. Did a pilot actually look at any of this before they published it?

The FI(A) does not include a CRI(A) it just happens to have a number of equivalent privileges.

I hold as independent ratings the FI, CRI SE/ME and IRI. My FI has the statement FCL.905.FI applies as in (a)/(b)/(d)/(e)/(f)/(g)/(g)(IR(R)/(h).

My CRI has For SEP(Land)/SEP(Sea)/MEP/SMG92/Cessna SET/Do28

My IRI just says FCL.905 IRI(A) applied.

Now if you go look them up you will see that there cross equivalency between the ratings but they are not embedded.