Regulation question multi / multi IFR instruction

[digits_]

Hi all,

it looks like TC changed the design a bit of their website (or I found some pages I hadn't seen before), and I have 2 uncertainties here.

If you hold a flight instructor rating, then:

1) I believe you need to have 50 hours of multi time and 10 hours on type if you want to give instruction towards a multi class rating

Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 5-1088.htm

(5) A person who conducts flight training in a multi-engine aeroplane where the trainee does not have a multi-engine class rating shall:

(a) be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence;

(b) have multi-engine pilot experience, which if acquired on centre thrust multi-engine aeroplanes may be credited toward qualifying a pilot to provide centre thrust multi-engine flight instruction only; and

(c) have experience of not less than 50 hours flight time on multi-engine aeroplanes with not less than 10 hours on the type of aeroplane used for the training.

2) You can give multi ifr training without, theoretically, having any hours on type ?

Source: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 5-1088.htm

(9) A person who conducts flight training toward the issuance of an instrument rating shall be the holder of a Commercial Pilot Licence or an Airline Transport Pilot Licence, have an instrument rating and:
(amended 2006/12/14; previous version)

(a) have a flight instructor rating; or
(amended 2006/12/14; previous version)

(b) have experience of not less than 500 hours pilot-in-command flight time, of which:
(amended 2006/12/14; previous version)

(i) not less than 100 hours shall be on the applicable aircraft group, and
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

(ii) in the case of Group I aircraft, not less than 10 hours shall be on the type of multi-engine aeroplane used for the training.
(amended 1998/03/23; previous version)

Can somebody confirm this interpretation is correct ?

Thanks !

[Oxi]

IFR wise, yes if you have at least 500 pic with 100 airplanes and 10 hours on the type or any class of Flight Instructor rating you can teach someone IFR.

For multi ratings you need the 50 hours total multi with 10 on type CPL or ATPL

oxi

[ThatArmyGuy]

Its a great loophole because it allows a flight instructor to build multi PIC hours teaching Multi-IFR and then one they have 50 hrs they can teach the multi rating as well.


Not advocating this, just saying it's a massive gap in the system.

[ReserveTank]

My thought is that the intent of the loophole was to be used for companies to provide equipment upgrades and in-house training. The use of the loophole in FTUs has made for some interestingly poor multi and IFR instruction as I have witnessed.
It should really be FAA style up here...where one needs to qualify as an multi and multi-IFR instructor through training, testing, and licensing. No one should have to pay to learn from an inexperienced instructor.

[photofly]

I don't see a loophole. By any reading, to give IFR instruction on a multi to a student who doesn't have a multi rating you must comply with both sets of requirements.

[mike123]

.

[DanWEC]

I don't see a loophole. By any reading, to give IFR instruction on a multi to a student who doesn't have a multi rating you must comply with both sets of requirements.

To a student without a multi rating, correct, but once the student has the the class rating, a flight instructor with no time on type can teach them IFR in that same twin. Odd, but true.

The multi rating is typically done prior to any instrument flying in the twin anyways.

[zulutime]

I don't see a loophole. By any reading, to give IFR instruction on a multi to a student who doesn't have a multi rating you must comply with both sets of requirements.

To a student without a multi rating, correct, but once the student has the the class rating, a flight instructor with no time on type can teach them IFR in that same twin. Odd, but true.

The multi rating is typically done prior to any instrument flying in the twin anyways.

If the IFR student already has his/her multi-rating, then wouldn't the IFR student be PIC if an instructor is providing IFR traing in an aircraft for which he is not type rated on?

[DanWEC]

No, but that goes alongside with the oddity of the regulation. Since the Flight Instructor will be PIC no matter what, it's weird that the competancy level of the student dictates whether he can provide the instruction.

But as a note, it's not a "type rating" the FI needs, it's just circumventing the 50 hours of Time on the specific Type that the instruction is taking place in.
*Edit- Didn't mean Time on Type- That's the 10 hour requirement, meant Time in Class (ME).

[zulutime]

No, but that goes alongside with the oddity of the regulation. Since the Flight Instructor will be PIC no matter what, it's weird that the competancy level of the student dictates whether he can provide the instruction.

But as a note, it's not a "type rating" the FI needs, it's just circumventing the 50 hours of Time on the specific Type that the instruction is taking place in.

Thanks...CAR's clear as mud as usual.

[Colonel Sanders]

Tiny note ... remember that just because something
is legal, doesn't mean it's safe. The CARs are not a
micro-managing receipe for safety, ok?

Regardless of what you are teaching, know your
airplane. Know it's systems inside and out, and
even though the four-bars say it's not important,
be a sharp stick & rudder pilot on it, because you
have to be able to recover from whatever the
student decides to do to it - which you would
never intentionally do.

[Colonel Sanders]

Food for thought:

CADORS Number: 2009A0218
Make: PIPER Model: PA44 180
Narrative: UPDATE TSB: During the flight, the student was asked to do a stall manoeuvre. The aircraft was approximately 3500 ASL. During recovery the aircraft abruptly entered a spin. The instructor immediately took control and started spin recovery procedures. During the ensuing dive and pull out from the spin, the aircraft impacted trees and came to rest right side up, with the wings separated from the fuselage. The aircraft was extensively damaged

CADORS Number: 2009C0595
Narrative: A private Cessna 310 with 2 people on board was doing circuits and on the downwind leg at Airdrie when the pilot advised he was demonstrating feathering one engine with the gear and flaps down. The aircraft could not sustain flight on one engine with both gear and flaps deployed and descended to the ground approximately 1 mile short of Runway 30. The aircraft received substantial damage.

I couldn't care less if these instructors satisfied the
CARs or not. They bent tin. Don't do that.

PS I snapshotted the entire CARs website, before
the latest hideous re-org:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16541550/Mirror.rar

Allows you to browse the CARs offline.

[digits_]

PS I snapshotted the entire CARs website, before
the latest hideous re-org:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16541550/Mirror.rar

Allows you to browse the CARs offline.

Thank you !

[digits_]

The multi rating is typically done prior to any instrument flying in the twin anyways.

I thought this would be obvious and also a legal requirement. But I can't find any requirement to hold a multi rating before you can get a multi ifr rating

How can that be possible ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Its a great loophole because it allows a flight instructor to build multi PIC hours teaching Multi-IFR and then one they have 50 hrs they can teach the multi rating as well.


Not advocating this, just saying it's a massive gap in the system.

This insane rule is one of the major contributing factors to the abysmally poor level of MEIFR training at so many schools.

What baffles me is why would anyone pay 7 + dollars a minute to be taught by an instructor that has just passed their own ride and has absolutely no experience ?

There are schools out there where the MEIFR instructors have actual real world IFR experience and many times the minimum hours to teach the IFR rating. And whats more you usually won't have to pay any more per hour to get that instruction. All it takes is a little research and asking the right questions.

[DanWEC]

The multi rating is typically done prior to any instrument flying in the twin anyways.

I thought this would be obvious and also a legal requirement. But I can't find any requirement to hold a multi rating before you can get a multi ifr rating

How can that be possible ?

It isn't..... ?

This is a real hypothetical, but you could theoretically do all the training mentioned in 421.46, BUT, you're then PIC for the flight test, and therefore you wouldn't be allowed to act as such without having a rating in the appropriate class... so you'd need the ME rating before doing the Group 1 flight test... at least that's how I would read it....but then again it's a special PIC situation anyhow when it's for the purposes of a flight test. It might even be possible to do the flight tests in backwards order. Group 1 first, then ME. Woulnd't make any damn sense though. Learn the basics first.

[photofly]

I seem to recall talking to a PE who said you could do both rides together. I'll check.

[Colonel Sanders]

you could do both rides together

You can. I did. It is strongly frowned upon these
days, however.

you're then PIC for the flight test, and therefore you wouldn't be allowed to act as such without having a rating in the appropriate class

See CAR 401.26:

401.26 The holder of a private pilot licence — aeroplane may act as
(c) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft for the sole purpose of the holder’s flight training or flight test

No specification of type or class or even category. There
are some absolutely fascinating consequences of that one
sentence, which your local gold-bars can explain to you.

[digits_]

Who ever said airlaw was boring ?

Anyway, my questions have been answered very thoroughly, thank you all !

[Colonel Sanders]

Good! Now, go do something important and order
some battle armor for your cat:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/wo ... 90221.html

or go mountain-bike riding. Good for your heart:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/wo ... 22431.html

[DanWEC]

No specification of type or class or even category. There
are some absolutely fascinating consequences of that one
sentence, which your local gold-bars can explain to you.

Hilarious. So as long as the aircraft meets the requirements for the specific test such as in CARS 428, You could do a ME ride in a ultralight twin... or a balloon with dual burners? .

[photofly]

What does it mean when it says "The holder of a private pilot licence — aeroplane may act as
(c) pilot-in-command or co-pilot of any aircraft for the sole purpose of the holder’s flight training or ..."

When would that be possible?

[Colonel Sanders]

Not sure I quite understand. Couple of examples:

1) solo time required for night rating
2) solo time required for seaplane rating

Candidate must act as PIC to satisfy the CARs
experience requirement to be issued the rating,
but obviously does not hold the rating yet.

Another example: before I held a multi rating,
I had to fly the Aztec to a different airport where
the examiner was, to take the test for the multi
rating. Obviously I did not hold a multi rating
before I took the test, but I acted as PIC because
I was the only one in the airplane. The DOT Inspector
had no problem with it. Back then, only DOT
Inspectors did flight tests. It was heresy to suggest
otherwise.

There are some other tremendously fun examples

[photofly]

Another example: before I held a multi rating,
I had to fly the Aztec to a different airport where
the examiner was, to take the test for the multi
rating. Obviously I did not hold a multi rating
before I took the test, but I acted as PIC because
I was the only one in the airplane.

I had no idea you could legally do that. I would have imagined you'd have to have the examiner come to you, or fly to them as a passenger of another pilot with a rating.

How far could you push it? If you were in BC and your chosen examiner was in Halifax, could you do a leisurely five-day cross-country trip solo without the rating?

[Colonel Sanders]

CAR 401.26(c) specifically permits it.

I explain it like this:

When someone is accruing solo time towards
a rating, they are essentially student pilots
again with respect to that training, even if
they hold an RPP, PPL, CPL or ATPL.

No pax, and instructor supervision required.

could you do a leisurely five-day cross-country trip solo without the rating?

I know of a student pilot that flew his buck fifty
to BC (from Ontario) for his x/c.

I know of another RPP that flew hundreds of hours
of solo time on floats before he finally got a float
rating. Must have been a slow learner.

Those are fairly tame. There are simply breath-
taking instances of compliance with CAR 401.26(c).

Ask your local four-bars to fill you in.