Really? I didn't know that.....interesting. Isn't that the same though as student bloggs going on a trip with his licensed mate and being given a few pointers?

Yep, in fact the CRI course is actually the basic PPL course teaching elements......

And in fact if we really want to get into the obscure there is actually no legal requirement to hold an Instructor rating. It is only a requirement to have the Instructor hold a rating in order for the hours to count towards licence issue....... (Insurance discussions aside)

Are there in fact any CREs who are not also CRIs?

P1s only used for successful flight test entry. Differences training is P/ut

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

There speaks a specialist on how to pick up these letter groups.

Oi! bose!

You missed CRMI and CRMIE! :E

The CRI is certainly a "flying instructor qualification".The course involves just 3 hours of actual flying as opposed to the 25 hours in the FI(R) course.Having gained a flying instructor qualification the new instructor traditionally learns his craft in the challenging world of teaching the ab initio syllabus especially the circuit element of the course.That ab initio training ground is denied the CRI.I find it very sad that in the modern club many new instructors seem only to get trial lessons many of which are seen as only joy rides by the purchaser.I have instructors coming up the system who are now talking about becoming examiners who have done little more instructing than their 25 solo sign offs.VBR Stampe

Ah well, makes a change from you accusing me of lying. :p

Although I would be interested in your expert opinion about how some one 'picks up' these ratings rather than going through the CAA selection process, attending the pre-requisite training courses and passing the examiner standardisation tests?

Ok, you got me, which ones are those?

OK - it's a bit of a cheat, but CRMI = CRM Instructor. CRMIE = CRM Instructor Examiner. Not strictly a flying qualification... :)

That insurance policy clause
 

Hi englishal,

May I most earnestly suggest that you should verify with the insurance company direct whether this clause does, or does not, include a CRI. This should be done in writing, as information given in phone calls is deniable and emails do not provide adequate court evidence.

The question is not whether the CRI is, or is not, a 'qualified flying instructor' (or an 'airworthiness authority approved pilot' for that matter). The question is whether the insurance company considers that for the purposes of their policy this person should be regarded as belonging to one or other of these categories.

If this matter is left in a state of uncertainty, and a claim should later arise, then irrespective of whether this issue is a material issue in the circumstances of the claim, if its very existence should come to the attention of the insurance company, they just might try to use it as grounds for refusing payment of the claim. In that event, you only recourse would be to sue the insurance company in the courts, which could be expensive.

(This is exactly what has been happening with critical illness insurance and I see no reason why some of these companies would not attempt to save themselves some money by trying it on with aircraft insurance).

Broomstick.

Thanks, I will write to them to verify.

I am of the opinion that a CRI is certainly a "qualified" flying instructor but will double check due to the number of threads on insurance not paying out!

We have a chap who was kind enough to fly with me in our plane who is a CRI, and will possibly will fly with some of the others in the group, so it is nice to know he is insured just in case!!

It is far easier to become a CRI than to become any of what traditionally used to mean a "flying instructor".

If you don't care about getting paid, you just need a PPL and a little bit of other stuff. Practically anybody with a PPL can become a CRI if they want to.

This is why an insurer might view it differently, and it is worth a check. Especially as it is normal for an insurance policy to allow any un-named "instructor" to be PIC, without any additional requirements. This means that somebody with a CRI could fly around in just about any aircraft (for which he is legal, regardless of experience) under the owner's insurance, without the insurer knowing anything about it.

A CRE is different; for that you need to hold or have held a JAA Professional Licence (i.e. a CPL or ATPL).

Given the way the OP is worded, I would be of the opinion (FWIW) that a CRI is a qualified flying instructor, but is not a Qualified Flying Instructor, the latter being (I suspect in the eyes of whoever wrote the clause) what is now called an FI.

Anyone with minimum 300hrs, £1500 to spare (two quotes I've been given) and passed a 25hours theory course + min 3 flight hours instruction + flight test with an instructors examiner.

Some LAA Coaches were given honorary CRIs, before the CAA realised what it was doing.

You are way out of your area of expertise here and embarrassing your self.

No LAA coaches were ever given anything of the sort. To be an LAA Coach you are required to be an Instructor first and then apply to be a coach. You are also required to have a minimum of 800hrs.

Quit while you are ahead.

If anyone is interested:

I have just received an email from our insurers clearly stating the CRI is regarded as a qualified instructor by the underwriters.

Are LAA Coaches part of National Express?

Great, thanks for that.
:ok: