Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Logging hours as CRI

what_next wrote:

not because the instrument rating is time-consuming

It was my case and the case of a couple of people I know. Basically, if you’re employed FT and / or have family, taking the time off for that ground school can be very annoying.
I was even going to go the FAA route, then saw the CB IR and decided to do the EASA instead since I had to time no time off work for the Ground school.

mh wrote:

So it is intended to have a distinction between a PICUS and a licence holder flying under supervision.

Yes. But apart from commercial line training and the “SPIC” requirement, the AMC only references the word supervision in “AMC1 FCL.050 Recording of flight time”:

b) Logging of time:
(1) PIC flight time:

(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;

As an instructor, the only time when I am required to countersign such flights under supervision is the annual training flight. The training syllabus itself does not contain a requirement for flights under supervision other than SPIC.

EDDS - Stuttgart

No, but FCL doesn’t exclude training past the license outside the necessary training flights.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

what_next wrote:

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 know and didn’t want to critize or offend you, therefore I already mentioned this in brackets.

I am not aware of a newer version.

There are two amendments to the initial version and an unoffical consolidated version: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/acceptable-means-of-compliance-and-guidance-materials/consolidated-version-aircrew
But I think there is nothing changed in this respect.

There is an (nice looking, but still confusing large) overview of the current regulations of EASA available at https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations

But since SPIC isn’t referenced anywhere else, I would not dare to log it no would I sign it off for any student.

I know and this is our German way of thinking about it. In the end I think the AMC makes it clear, that all those distinctions between PICs are for regulation only, you don’t have to note them in your logbook, there a single column PIC is counted up.

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.

In the ATO where I did my CB-IR, there was also only one other guy doing his Enroute IR together with me. And the ATO was around 300km from home, the closest was around 250km, offering this course. All the others were still in the process of awaiting LBA approval, one sent me their newsletter regarding their approval one month after passing the IR checkride. This kept other pilots in my club from starting the outside ATO flying, because they saw no perspective, even though we have two IFR aircraft and three IR instructors. I started this even before the first ATOs had their courses approved by LBA.

P19 EDFE EDVE EDDS

TobiBS wrote:

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.

Indeed. In our club we charge €150:-/flight hour for a G1000+KAP140-equipped Cessna 172S (with both DME and ADF).

We do have a yearly fee of €390:-, but that is to cover infrastructure costs (we run our own airfield) and not aircraft costs.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 10 Aug 16:36
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

But presumably an IRI has to have done the full FI course first, and probably needs the CPL theory exam passes (like an FI needs to teach ab initio EASA PPL). A CRI is not an FI – not a “proper instructor” as some like to point out You can do a CRI on the back of just a PPL, AFAIK.

You can get the instrument restriction lifted on the CRI if your suitable qualified and done the appropriate course. Same applies for the MEP.

Apparently there is a guy with a PPL teaching IR and MEP at a well know ATO.

I don’t think for one second the CBIR is dead in fact a very well respected ATO that specializes in modular courses advisers all its students to do a CBIR route in preference to a traditional IR>

Maybe @Genghis_the_Engineer can enlighten us. He is a CRI (unless he has upgraded to FI since his last visit here).

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

what_next wrote:

AFAIK he will remain the only one for a long time as there seems to be zero interest.

It is in part also your responsibility as an ATO to point inquiring students in the right direction. In my opinion, even if you do the ATPL theory, it can be better to do the CB-IR route to an IR. The IR you will receive in the end is the same as via the old “modular” route, with more flexibility on the way.

Anyone working towards an ATPL needs the 14 exams, but can do the flying part of the IR via the CB IR route. In fact that’s what the ATO business should be doing.

What he/she can’t do is use the 7 CB IR exams. I think only one of them (HP&L?) counts towards the full 14. Those 7 exams are only for a PPL/IR, or a CPL/IR who is aware he can never become an ATP (and that’s a daft route since the standalone CPL is 13 exams so you end up doing 13+7-2=18, or something like that!).

I know quite a few CRIs. A lot of people have done it. People have told me I should too (is it one of the ways to get qualified for the UK AOPA mentor scheme; not that that has had much of a take-up) but I have chosen to promote GA in other ways…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

…but can do the flying part of the IR via the CB IR route. In fact that’s what the ATO business should be doing.

Why should the ATOs be doing that? They have a fleet of aircraft to maintain and their instructors to pay. An ATO is not a charity whose purpose it is to get as many people flying as cheaply as possible.

I see the CB-IR as a good option for a private pilot who owns an aeroplane to get trained on his own aircraft with the least amount of bureaucracy. Maybe also for a private pilot who has access to a privately owned or club owned aircraft that he can use for his training. If he can find an instructor who will do that with him. Personally I wouldn’t because this is a first class liability trap. When I instruct within my FTO, I am protected as much as possible. As long as I don’t do anything really stupid I have nothing to fear. What is not paid for by the insurer will be covered by the FTO. Not so if I instruct someone on his own plane. If we damage his aircraft and he has no hull insurance the repair is on me. If he gets hurt, he may even get my house.

EDDS - Stuttgart
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top