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.

Not heard if that one - wonder if that "U" is unmanned!

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

Isi't that what used to be a "B2"?

At least they'd done the course .......

Half a QWI, simples.

Minnie :ok::ok::ok:

QUI not defined by the MAA ...

MAA RA 2125 Flying Instructor Training

:confused:

If I was a betting man I'd say it is meant to read QWI and someone made a typo.
BV

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.....

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

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.

If it is as Klingo suggests ... BONKERS is the only word for it :rolleyes:

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...

RRS-B will be turning and spinning in 'is grave ! ...... LFH cfs


.......................

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'...

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....

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.

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 ... :ugh:

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...:confused:

Qui? Surely, it ought to be "which", rather than "what"?

Knowing what a QFI you are Beagle, rather than just answer your question, here is an extract from the current Trg Gp Orders. Also, they are fully trained to the normal standard but on a smaller syllabus.

QUIs should only instruct the basic exercises in the UAS Guide to Sortie Content from familiarisation to the sortie prior to first solo plus simple aerobatics. Prior to first solo, UAS students should fly with a QFI. QUIs should not teach any exercise not in the QUI CFS Flying Course Guide. When flying UAS students on non-syllabus sorties, QUIs should adhere to the rules for passenger flying (TG(E) 2340), including not permitting a passenger to handle the aircraft below 1000ft agl, except that a QUI may permit a UAS student to fly normal circuits because a QUI is qualified to do so.

Most UAS have between 60 and 90 cadets on the books, some do indeed fly a lot, the majority don't. I would guess that the average will be 10-15 flown solo and 4-6 with a PFB and doing the advanced elements (formation, LL Nav, Spin/Aeros) per UAS, some are better than others.

Who would be (a) QUI (?) :) not a Which.

MTK ...

So 'Spinning' is classified as 'Advanced Training' and not taught prior to 1st Solo ?

Just interested ...

Correct, the Tutor doesn't spin unless you really really want/force it too. It doesn't even drop a wing at the stall unless you have so much power on you're climbing anyway.

Who was the leader of the Pedants' Revolt ..................?
















.............................. Which Tyler!! :ok:

So, having established that a 'QUI' isn't even qualified to teach the Part-FCL PPL(A) syllabus, who actually are these 'QUI's? FTRS Flt Lt/ex-Wg Cdrs who have been persuaded to fill the UAS instructional vacancies which the RAF no longer has the manpower to fill with regular QFIs? Or are they holding officers waiting for an OCU?

It all smells of beancounter-inspired dumbing down to me.

Yet once the rest-of-the-world looked up to the standards set by CFS...:\

Beagle,

I have a feeling that it was a while ago that the rest of the world looked up to CFS - unfortunately!!

Pretty much all FTRS, the only regulars on a UAS at the moment are the Commanding Officers. That may change temporarily during the transition to MFTS. There aren't enough ex mil QFIs to fill the posts and 115 don't have the capacity to train enough to the full qualification level in a reasonable timescale. It's not beancounter driven, the choice is have many fewer fully qualified instructors and reduce dramatically what can be done on the UAS, or train only to a level to achieve the task as not that many actually need the advanced level training. The fact that they aren't qualified to teach the Part-FCL PPL is irrelevant, that's not the job they are required to do.

And they will receive the full course and qualification eventually. It is a stop gap measure.

Mach the Knife wrote:

Why are 'ex mil' QFIs sought to fill the posts? Doesn't the RAF have sufficient serving QFIs left?

beardy wrote: 'Eventually' implies how long? 6 months...a year or what?

Eventually means when there is capacity to complete the course. Although I have heard dates being given, things change, notably being brought forward when capacity is released.

Don't shoot the messengers.

So sad really ... Yes the UAS Scheme was/is a primary recruiting tool for RAF Officer intake ... But graduates, in the past, that were able to gain a PPL (at reduced cost to themselves) courtesy of their UAS flying training ... who went on to forge a civilian career in industry, the judiciary or government/politics retained 'Air Mindedness' and were 'Advocates' for the RAF in general ... I can think of a few notable PPRuNe Mil Members.

................Que? :ok:

Which was of course Trenchard's original plan for UASs.

If you wanted to join as a regular - you were meant to go to Cranwell.

Nope, I think it should be "who"...