The instructor is held liable if he lets the PIC make major mistakes, but essentially the PIC remains in command.
Is there a reference for that?
I ask because this has come up before and it seems that no European instructor has ever been liable for being present on an accident flight on which the LHS is legally capable of being PIC. That is IMHO how it should be.
There have been cases in the USA, however…
Peter wrote:
…because in the UK an IRI can do freelance IR training (outside an ATO) towards the instrument time required for the CB IR, for example. I recall the IR candidate can pick up up to 30hrs in that way.
Yes that’s correct, for the EASA CB-IR up to 30 hours if IR instruction can be done outside an FTO. But the instructor must be qualified for that of course. Alternatively, if the student already holds an enroute IR (where that exists) he can fly those 30 IFR hours on his own.
But around here, this is mostly theory, because neither the CB-IR nor the enroute IR is really “taking off”.
Peter wrote:
A CRI is not an FI – not a “proper instructor” as some like to point out…
One could put it that way (without wanting to offend all those CRIs out there who are probably wonderful instructors).
Ok, some of these statements I read here are fairly new to me. My thoughts FWIW:
Scenarios:
You as CRI flies with a friend that wants to practice before his/her SEP proficiency check (refresher flights still with valid rating):
You log PIC + CRI Instruction, he/she(student) logs DUAL time.
You as CRI with IRI privileges flies IFR with a friend that is not an IR holder(yet):
You log PIC + IFR + IRI instruction, student logs DUAL + IFR + instrument flight time (made possible by CB IR)
You as CRI without IRI privileges flies IFR with a friend that is not an IR holder(yet):
You log PIC + IFR + CRI Instruction (if instruction is given), student logs DUAL (if instruction is received) + IFR (this cannot be counted towards a CB IR, IFR doesn’t count there)
When an instructor is on board acting as instructor he is always PIC.
I know very little of the liability issue that Flyer59 mentions but it makes a little bit of sense since only one on board can be PIC. I guess it is up to the insurance company.
what_next wrote:
But around here, this is mostly theory, because neither the CB-IR nor the enroute IR is really “taking off”.
Perhaps another topic but I think CB IR will grow a lot until we get the Basic IR.
mh wrote:
Yes, but “flight time under supervision” isn’t. If you hold a PPL and take an instructor for refreshing or recurrent training, you are not a student pilot. You are, after all, PIC, and the instructor is an instructor (CRI/FI).
This has been discussed (nearly) to death in Germany since I can remember. It is a legal grey zone of some sort, but the common juristic interpretation is that the instructor is pilot in command on all “training flights with an instructor”, no matter if these are required (e.g. the annual training flight) or voluntary. (see here for example: http://www.pilotundrecht.de/TEXTE/PROBLEME/90_tage_regel.html or http://ausbildung.bwlv.de/jar/verantwortlicher_pilot.htm ).
“Flight time under supervision” only has two legal meanings: During instruction it is called “PICUS” (pilot in command under supervision) and can be applied to less that 20 hours of an integrated or modular training program. After gaining one’s license and flying with a commercial operator, “supervision” is regulated by the operator’s approved OM-D. Other than that, “supervision” is not defined anywhere in aviation.
Fly310 wrote:
Ok, some of these statements I read here are fairly new to me. My thoughts FWIW:
Scenarios:…
All correct.
Fly310 wrote:
Perhaps another topic but I think CB IR will grow a lot until we get the Basic IR.
I don’t know. CB-IR is kind of a dead-end for private pilots only. The number of private pilots actually flying IFR has been on the decline since decades, not because the instrument rating is time-consuming and expensive to get, but because IFR capable aircraft are ridiculously expensive to operate. 300+ Euros for an hour in an IFR equipped Pa28 or C172 is totally out of this world. You can buy Lufthansa tickets for your whole familiy before you have flown a single hour in your spam can. And your Lufthansa flight will take place no matter if there are Cat III conditions, thunderstorms or blizzards.
what_next wrote:
mh wrote:
As an instructor you are responsible, but the holder of the license still logs PIC time.
AMC1 FCL.050 (b)(1)(ii)
the applicant for or the holder of a pilot licence may log
as PIC time all solo flight time, flight time as SPIC and
flight time under supervision provided that such SPIC
time and flight time under supervision are countersigned
by the instructor;Only under special circumstances. “SPIC” (student pilot in command) is specific to integrated courses for CPL/ATPL (see GM1 to Appendix 3; Appendix 6; FCL.735.H ) and can’t be logged anywhere else.
Other ATOs claim that as well, but first of all, this reference in the AMC is for Helicopter only (But of course, there are Aeroplane CPL/ATPL integrated courses with SPIC in the AMC as well) and in my opinion this only shows, that there must be SPIC time in this course included, not that this is the only way to log SPIC time. The only definite reference I could find for this point of view is CAP804 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP804%20April%202015%20searchable.pdf), which states
Crediting of SPIC is restricted to students of integrated training courses only
but I guess this was the text in one of the drafts of EASA-FCL and was taken out before becoming law, therefore no mentionig in FCL.050 anymore and hence only interpretation of CAA.
Fly310 wrote:
what_next wrote: But around here, this is mostly theory, because neither the CB-IR nor the enroute IR is really “taking off”.Perhaps another topic but I think CB IR will grow a lot until we get the Basic IR.
TobiBS wrote:
in the AMC is for Helicopter only
It is the same for airplanes (see page 498 of this document here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/AMC%20and%20GM%20to%20Part-FCL.pdf – I am not aware of a newer version.)
TobiBS wrote:
…and in my opinion this only shows, that there must be SPIC time in this course included,
Yes, there must be 20 hours of SPIC. But since SPIC isn’t referenced anywhere else, I would not dare to log it no would I sign it off for any student.
TobiBS wrote:
I agree on that, especially in Germany the problem in the beginning was a big uncertainty, with no ATOs and hence unclarity how to start. It seems that the initial inertia was lost and hence I hope we will see more and more pilots going that way.
I have renectly completed (sucessfully 
) the training of our first CB-IR student, about one year after CB-IR was introduced. AFAIK he will remain the only one for a long time as there seems to be zero interest.
what_next wrote:
This has been discussed (nearly) to death in Germany since I can remember. It is a legal grey zone of some sort, but the common juristic interpretation is that the instructor is pilot in command on all “training flights with an instructor”, no matter if these are required (e.g. the annual training flight) or voluntary. (see here for example: http://www.pilotundrecht.de/TEXTE/PROBLEME/90_tage_regel.html or http://ausbildung.bwlv.de/jar/verantwortlicher_pilot.htm ).
Well, the first link backs my interpretation (" Daß sich der Fluglehrer den Übungsflug als Flugzeit in sein Flugbuch eintragen darf, heißt nicht, daß der Lizenzinhaber sich diesen Flug nicht gutschreiben dürfte. Auch er kann sich (fast möchte man sagen: selbstverständlich) den Flug in seinem Flugbuch gutschreiben.") and the second is outdated since it references old JAR-FCL regulations that have a different wording in EASA Part-FCL.
The AMC explicitly speaks of “flight time under supervision” and not as time acted as PICUS, a term defined in FCL.010 and used separately in AMC1 FCL.050. So it is intended to have a distinction between a PICUS and a licence holder flying under supervision.
@Peter: That is a good question, I have heard of some court cases agianst instructors based on this but I will research it.
what_next wrote:
I don’t know. CB-IR is kind of a dead-end for private pilots only.
The number of private pilots actually flying IFR has been on the decline since decades, not because the instrument rating is time-consuming and expensive to get, but because IFR capable aircraft are ridiculously expensive to operate. 300+ Euros for an hour in an IFR equipped Pa28 or C172 is totally out of this world.
But 300+ Euros is an ATO or commercial rental price that as such is already too high, there are lots of examples with IFR aicraft around 200€/h (http://www.gaviators.com/charter/preise, http://www.flugschule-ardex.de/flugschule-ardex-fluege/flugschule-ardex-charter-preise.html, http://aerotours.de/Flugzeug_charter.html) or in clubs they can be around 160€/h, of course with yearly fees.
