What is a 'QUI'?
Thread Starter
What is a 'QUI'?
When securing military accreditation for the NPPL, it was agreed as follows:
The infamous Marston report changed the UAS syllabus and introduced the 'air experience' syllabus. So the NPPL credit was amended to exclude any credit for 'interesting passenger flying', so that only flight instruction delivered by a QFI or the holder of a valid civil FI(A) certificate would be credited. As would PIC time.
However, I gather that there's now another category, that of 'QUI'. What does that stand for and what do they do? Is this a new term for a C-to-I QFI or what?
The reason I ask is that, as currently written, technically 'QUI'-delivered flight instruction may not credited. Hence it would be good to know what a 'QUI' actually is before the NPPL P&SC can decide whether to make a suitable credit recommendation to the CAA.
Flying Training. Any previous flying training on Single Engine Piston (Land) aeroplanes conducted by an FI(A) or current Qualified Flying Instructor (QFI) may be counted towards the 32 hour minima of flying training and consolidation required before the applicant may take the NST and GST required for the grant of an NPPL(A) with SSEA Class Rating. This may include:
a) Service Flying Scholarship flying.
b) Elementary Flying Training (EFT) flying.
c) University Air Squadron (UAS) flying.
d) Service Pilots under training.
e) Service Pilots withdrawn from flying training.
a) Service Flying Scholarship flying.
b) Elementary Flying Training (EFT) flying.
c) University Air Squadron (UAS) flying.
d) Service Pilots under training.
e) Service Pilots withdrawn from flying training.
However, I gather that there's now another category, that of 'QUI'. What does that stand for and what do they do? Is this a new term for a C-to-I QFI or what?
The reason I ask is that, as currently written, technically 'QUI'-delivered flight instruction may not credited. Hence it would be good to know what a 'QUI' actually is before the NPPL P&SC can decide whether to make a suitable credit recommendation to the CAA.
There now exists a type of QFI with restricted teaching privileges, up to first solo I believe. it is designed as a stop gap until CFS can slot them in to the system for a full lobotomy. I don't know if this is it.
edit: this is for UASs
edit: this is for UASs
Last edited by beardy; 22nd Apr 2016 at 16:36.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, no spinning, no engine failure after take off. Not sure that QUI is real or just made up by those that have completed only part of the QFI syllabus and are now instructing on UAS. Supposedly they will complete the full QFI syllabus in due course.....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sources tell me it is Qualified University Air Squadron Instructor
Interim stop gap to man UAS with instructors graduated from CFS who have done all the Airborne Instructional Technique training and all the basic UAS syllabus sorties plus basic Aerobatics. Interim as CFS predicted they were not able to mange the volume of instructors required. The reality is that some of them have been pushed straight through the full QFI syllabus due to capacity existing at CFS after all. It is said that any QUI would return to CFS to complete all the advanced stuff when capacity allowed. Not sure how this would affect accredited schemes etc. I believe they do "graduate" from CFS as B2 QUI so its just the content of what they are allowed/qualified to teach not the quality of the teaching that is affected. That's all I can glean from those itk.
kbc
Interim stop gap to man UAS with instructors graduated from CFS who have done all the Airborne Instructional Technique training and all the basic UAS syllabus sorties plus basic Aerobatics. Interim as CFS predicted they were not able to mange the volume of instructors required. The reality is that some of them have been pushed straight through the full QFI syllabus due to capacity existing at CFS after all. It is said that any QUI would return to CFS to complete all the advanced stuff when capacity allowed. Not sure how this would affect accredited schemes etc. I believe they do "graduate" from CFS as B2 QUI so its just the content of what they are allowed/qualified to teach not the quality of the teaching that is affected. That's all I can glean from those itk.
kbc
Guest
Posts: n/a
This seems an unenforceable restriction on the hours you can use towards the licence. As far as I know, the qualification of the instructor is not recorded in a logbook of the student. If you are taught Effects of Control 1 by a heroic Jedi master A1 QFI or a brand new QUI the logbook entry will be identical.
So its all down to the morals of the applicant and the person who signs the MAS form. Not a good way to police a regulation.
So its all down to the morals of the applicant and the person who signs the MAS form. Not a good way to police a regulation.
Thread Starter
Are these 'QUI's trained and tested to at least FCL.930.A standard?
Would someone please tell MAA that there's no such thing as an EASA Instructor 'Rating' these days...
Would someone please tell MAA that there's no such thing as an EASA Instructor 'Rating' these days...
Thread Starter
Well, so far all I can gather is that a 'QUI' hasn't completed the full CFS course and been cat'd, so hasn't been trained and tested even to B2 QFI standard?
It is vital that early, formative exercises are correctly taught. A 'QFI' or civil FI(A) has been trained/tested to a known standard - hence any training delivered by such instructors at a UAS may be fully credited towards the NPPL.
Whereas there is no such guarantee with a partly-trained 'instructor'...
It is vital that early, formative exercises are correctly taught. A 'QFI' or civil FI(A) has been trained/tested to a known standard - hence any training delivered by such instructors at a UAS may be fully credited towards the NPPL.
Whereas there is no such guarantee with a partly-trained 'instructor'...
Of course it's all speculation until you know the facts.
And I don't suspect HQ CFS or anyone else cares whether or not these specific sorties can be accredited for a civil qualification....this is military flying training satisfying its own needs.
Just saying like....
And I don't suspect HQ CFS or anyone else cares whether or not these specific sorties can be accredited for a civil qualification....this is military flying training satisfying its own needs.
Just saying like....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Still on the beach (but this one's cold).
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QUI is trained by the same people in the same location to the same standard as the extant EFT Tutor QFI. The difference is the syllabus they get to teach is restricted to the basic exercises to meet the need of the majority of the pupils they will be teaching. It's a reasonable solution to the problem from the organisations perspective, a UAS will only have a handful of trainees that get beyond first solo. Would be a bit of a chafe from an individual's perspective to spend an instructional tour unable to teach the fun stuff at the end of the syllabus though.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Might as well give R C Simulations a shout and ask them to come up with a Tutor PPT for the UAS ... That way you won't need any qualified instructional staff ... 
Thread Starter
Mach the Knife wrote:
What 'basic exercises' do these part-trained instructors deliver?
Only a handful of trainees that get beyond first solo? Is that really so? In other threads it's claimed that UAS students still get quite a lot of flying...
The difference is the syllabus they get to teach is restricted to the basic exercises to meet the need of the majority of the pupils they will be teaching. It's a reasonable solution to the problem from the organisations perspective, a UAS will only have a handful of trainees that get beyond first solo.
Only a handful of trainees that get beyond first solo? Is that really so? In other threads it's claimed that UAS students still get quite a lot of flying...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
Qui? Surely, it ought to be "which", rather than "what"?